Chapter 3 | Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture.
That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is
practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.

According to personal or individual relativism (also called subjectivism), ethical judgments and
beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook and attitudes of individual persons. Rather than
being objective, such judgments are subjective. Judgments and beliefs are from the moral outlook
of individuals. Example: One person may be for war, another may not. But, neither view is more
right or wrong than the other one. One, called individual relativism, is the view that each person
creates his or her own moral standards.

Cultural relativism suggests that standards of morality and justice are relative to particular cultural
understandings. Cultural relativism, is the view that societies, not the individual person, creates
moral standards that are then authoritative over everyone within that society. Cultural relativism
refers to not judging a culture to our own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or normal.
For example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting! ” one should instead ask, “Why do
some cultures eat fried insects?”

Difference between descriptive relativism and metaethical relativism

Descriptive ‘ethical’ relativism is the view that the moral values of individuals conflict in
unresolvable ways. Essentially, descriptive relativism is a means of explaining differing moral views
as a result of cultural background and experiences. This is the view that different cultures have
different moral codes – The moral codes of traditional Eskimos, of feudal Japanese, of modern
Western Europeans, of ancient Greeks, of New Guinea headhunters, of female circumcision
(female genital mutilation) in some parts of Africa and Asia, etc.

Metaethical ‘moral’ relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the moral
values of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on their unique
beliefs, customs, and practices. For example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn't
mean that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it.

Criticisms of objectivism, subjectivism, relativism, and moral realism

Ethical objectivism is a theory that claims as its principle that an individual needs to think
objectively in order to analyze any situation rationally – that there is an objective right and wrong.
For instance, a person who works hard on a farm his entire life to be completely self-sustaining,
engaging in actions that will ideally lead to long-term happiness as opposed to short term pleasure.
In essence, the argument is this: objectivism leads to intolerance because it makes us think that
we are right and other people who disagree with us are wrong.

Ethical subjectivism is a form of moral anti-realism that denies the "metaphysical thesis" of moral
realism, (the claim that moral truths are ordinary facts about the world). Instead ethical subjectivism
claims that moral truths are based on the mental states of individuals or groups of people. For a
subjectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another, based solely
on one's mental choices, subjective processing, or emotions. For example, someone that claims
that whatever their king wants to happen is the morally right thing for everyone to do would be an
ethical subjectivist (right and wrong are based on mental states), but they would not be a moral
relativist (right and wrong are the same for everyone).
Relativism is the claim that standards of truth, rationality, and ethical right and wrong vary greatly
between cultures and historical epochs (periods) and that there are no universal criteria for
adjudicating between them. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to
the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral
norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society
but be morally wrong in another. For example, if a person believes that abortion is morally wrong,
then it IS wrong -- for her. In other words, it would be morally wrong for Susan to have an abortion
if Susan believed that abortion is always morally wrong.

Moral realism idea that there are ethical facts and that moral judgments can be said to be true or
false. Moral realism is the view that there are facts of the matter about which actions are right and
which wrong, and about which things are good and which bad. Take, for instance, the natural fact
that if we do this action, we will have given someone the help they need.

How relativism poses a problem for moral judgment

Moral judgments refer to judgments that have moral content; they are used to evaluate situations,
courses of action, persons, behavior, etc. The basis of moral judgments is a topic of some
philosophical dispute. Some hold that moral judgments are based on intuition or feeling, often in
connection with the emotions.

The problem with individual moral relativism is that it lacks a concept of guiding principles of right
or wrong. While thinkers of cultural relativism are clear that it is wrong to impose one's own cultural
values over another, some cultures hold a central value of intolerance.

The connections between relativism and pluralism

Pluralism is essentially about social relations. Relativism says that each person or group of
people defines their own truth, establishes their own ethics, and chooses their own values, and
none of those truths, ethics, or values are inherently any more true, ethical, or valuable than any
others.

Ethical pluralism is the acceptance that there may be more than one correct moral framework that
we can use. However, it differs from relativism in that it does not accept that all frameworks are
equal - morality, according to a pluralist, does not simply come down to personal preference.

The arguments in favor of and against relativism

Opponents of moral relativism often argue that there is a universal morality, a code of right and
wrong that unites all of existence. They also claim that moral relativism allows for actions that are
immoral, like slavery or genocide (deliberate killing of a large number of people), simply by framing
them as a cultural value.

Differentiate between relativism and a commitment to tolerance

Tolerance is a commitment to seek in diversity the bonds that unite humanity. Tolerance
recognizes the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. People are naturally
diverse; only tolerance can ensure the survival of mixed communities in every region of the globe.
Thus, tolerance is not a value of relativism. Perhaps If people are relativists, they certainly do not
need to be tolerant of other people. Or rather, if they are relativists, it is not inconsistent with their
relativism to be intolerant of those who disagree with them.
How relativism might come up in conversations about concrete moral issues
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That
is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is
practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.
The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just
because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. Slavery is a good
example of this.

- END -