GE ETH
MODULE 3
The Theory of Ethical/Moral Relativism
Prepared by:
RAMCEL L. TIU
Faculty, College of Arts and Sciences
SSCT Del Carmen | Del Carmen, Siargao Islands, Surigao del Norte
Title: Ethical Relativism
Topic: Definition of Ethical Relativism; Arguments for Ethical Relativism; and
Assessment of Ethical Relativism.
Time Frame: 6 hrs.
1
GE Eth – Ethics
Introduction
Ethics of Moral Philosophy as an academic discipline is basically an
attempt to seek for a universal guiding principle for human action and conduct.
As a critical search for something normative in the realm of human conduct,
ethics tries to establish a norm or standard whereby all human actions could be
rationally based and ultimately judged and assessed.
In this regard, ethics as a specific philosophical endeavor presents and
exposes the various ethical theories that have been articulated by some fo the
great thinkers throughout history.
These theories have become, to a significant extent, a familiar, if not a
fundamental feature in any formal ethical study.
But before any examination of these so-called ethical theories could
properly begin, we ought to consider whether the very idea of applying these
theories is misguided or not.
We commonly hear people say, “What is right or good for one person is
not necessarily so for another; what is moral in a particular situation may be
immoral and prohibited in another situation; what is morally condemned in one
place may be praiseworthy in another.”
If these were correct, then it appears that we cannot truly exercise any
general or universal moral evaluation. However, throughout history, a lot of moral
philosophers have concerned themselves with the possibility and wisdom of
formulating an objective and universal moral standard or norm that would
transcend differences in individual tastes, cultural biases and situational
peculiarities. Many of them want to know what people ought to do and which
ethical beliefs and practices are true.
Perhaps, the greatest challenge that confronts ethics as a discipline
today as in any other time is the ethical doctrine of Relativism. The current mode
of skepticism about the general validity of ethics can well be attributed to this
particular philosophy which is actually an ancient one that has assumed different
forms, much like old wine poured into new wineskins.
The challenge and problem of relativism have become extremely
controversial since the nineteenth century, when anthropologists began telling us
of exotic societies so different from ours.
In a sense, relativism has always been a threat to established morality, for
if all moral values are simply relative (i.e., depending on time, situation, persons,
culture, etc.), then of what use is ethics?
If morality is just a matter of individual and/or group judgment and
preference, then why pursue a philosophical activity with the end in view of trying
to practically establish and justify the grounds of what is right and what is wrong,
of what is good and what is bad?
Objectives
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
Discuss the theory of ethical/moral relativism;
Identify and explain the arguments for and against it; and
Recognize the role that culture plays in moral behavior and development.
Learning Activities
Definition of Ethical or Moral Relativism
2
GE Eth – Ethics
Although there are different specific types or versions of Ethical
Relativism, we can say that generally, it refers to a view of doctrine that ethical
values and beliefs (as to what is right/good and wrong/bad) are relative to the
time, place, persons, situations and societies that hold them.
In short, Ethical Relativism is a theory that holds that there are no
universally valid moral principles; that all moral values are valid relative to culture
or individual choice. For an ethical relativist, “Whether an action is right or wrong
depends on the moral norms of society or the moral commitments of the
individual, and no absolute standard exists by which differing rules or
commitments can be judged.”
Hence, there are no values that cut across cultural boundaries and
peoples that are not relative to the specific place or context in which they are
held. Morality therefore depends on specific social or cultural circumstances
(traditions, customs, etc.) What is then morally right or wrong may vary
fundamentally from person to person or culture to culture.
Without a doubt, Ethical Relativism poses a great challenge to the very
foundation of morality. Aside from being a controversial view, it is also one of the
most difficult and complex problems or issues in ethics. It is, in fact, “arguably the
central problem in ethics, one to which virtually all others eventually lead.”
“Ethical Relativists, though, are neither skeptics nor nihilists. They believe
in moral right and wrong. It is just that they contend that what is basically right for
an individual or group may be wrong for another.”
Relativism does not, however, try to tell us which acts and practices are
right and wrong. “It only says that no matter how we answer that question, we
must acknowledge that an act or conduct may be both right and wrong at the
same time – say, right in one culture but wrong in another. To put it more simply,
differing moral views about the same action may be both right at the same time.”
Arguments for Ethical Relativism
There are quite a good number of reasons for believing and accepting
that what Ethical Relativism holds is true. In what follows, we will present the
most commonly mentioned reasons or arguments, which in one way or the other
favor and support the belief in the philosophy of Ethical Relativism.
1. The Cultural Differences Argument
In sociology, known as the study of human society, cultural relativism is
given prime importance. Cultural relativism is the view that moral beliefs
and practices vary with and depend on the human needs and social
conditions of particular cultures. This definition is entirely based on the
premise that there can be no universal “oughts,” and there is no culture
that can be the basis of all that is good and true. It is important to
recognize the vitality of cultural differences since ethical judgments are
relative to cultural contexts.
One of the most often cited reasons to support Ethical Relativism is the
actual existence of moral diversity among cultures. Throughout history
many societies have held beliefs and practices about morality that are
strikingly different form our own. For centuries, people have pointed out
those different societies or cultures at least appear to have vastly different
moral codes. Indeed, it is uncontroversially true that people in different
societies have different customs and different ideas about right/good and
wrong/bad. There is no universal or transcultural consensus on which
actions are right and wrong, “even though there is a considerable
overlapping with regards to this.” Noted American anthropologist Ruth
Benedict, a pioneering scholar in the field, in her book Patterns of Culture,
claims that careful study of the cultural practices of different peoples
supports the idea that what is and is not behaviorally normal is culturally
determined. The indisputable reality of cultural diversity has been
3
GE Eth – Ethics
tremendously influential; it has persuaded a lot of people to adopt a
skeptical stance as to the whole idea of an objective and universal moral
truth. Given the wide disparities of practice and belief, it seems that Ethical
Relativism is consistent with the facts of cultural diversity.
2. The Argument from Respect
As we have just noted above, Ethical Relativism rooted in cultural
multiplicity seemed to be very appealing to a good number of people,
especially among the youth of today. “Part of its [powerful drawing power]
is due to the fact that such view has been thought to promote tolerance.
Accordingly, if moral codes differ from culture and there is no objective or
culturally dependent basis by which to judge the moral code of any culture,
then the moral code of one’s particular culture has no special status
compared with the rest. Moreover, “[no culture] has the right to impose [its]
own [ethical] views [and practices] on anyone else, least of all on people in
different cultures [and traditions].”The appropriate attitude to take is
therefore one of respect and tolerance for moral standpoint different from
what one upholds.
3. The Psychological Argument
Our values are simply the result of our having been conditioned to behave
in a certain way. We may feel that certain actions are good and others are
bad or evil, but that is merely because we all had been trained and
conditioned to have those feelings, beginning when we were still little
children usually through parental rearing. Thus, “if we have been trained
and brought up by our parents or elders different, most certainly we would
have different moral values and principles, and we would definitely feel just
as strongly about them. In other words, all of us human beings acquire our
moral beliefs by a process of psychological conditioning. “Thus, if we had
been conditioned differently, we would have different moral beliefs. The
conclusion becomes inevitable: our moral beliefs are neither true nor false,
right nor wrong, for there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics. Moral
truth is relative to one’s own psychological upbringing, nothing more, and
nothing less.
4. The Conformity Argument
“Some people accept Ethical Relativism because they somehow think that
people should conform with and embrace the ethical code of their
respective societies and cultures.” In fact, some even went as far as
believing that it is their duty to do so. As social beings by nature, it is but
natural for people to easily affiliate and conform to the accepted ethical
standards of the particular group that they belong. Through cultural
relativism, it is thought that people would come to be more accepting of
their own societal norms. Their belief gives a good basis for a common
morality within a culture – in fact, a kind of a democratic basis where
“diverse ideas and principles are pooled in, thus insuring that the
norms/rules that a certain society would eventually accept have a wide
and solid support.” This then provides the central validity or justification of
the morality of the group, whatever it may be.
5. The Provability Argument
Finally, another reason to believe that what Ethical Relativism holds is
indeed true is the undeniable fact of moral dispute occurring between and
among groups as well as individuals. The usual experience of people
having great difficulty in knowing what is the morally “right thing” to do in a
particular situation has led to a general attitude of skepticism on the
possibility of determining, much worse establishing a universal and definite
4
GE Eth – Ethics
moral standard. The main point of contention in this line of argument is
this: “If there is such thing as objective or universal truth in ethics, we
should be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and other false.
But in fact we cannot prove which moral opinions are true and which are
false. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics.”
Critical Evaluation of Ethical Relativism
1. On Cultural Diversity
Cultural Relativism gives birth to ethical relativism, which veers away from
the idea that there are objective moral standards. With this, people who
are ethically wrong by all standards except by their culture can invoke
cultural relativism to justify their act. If we invoke cultural relativism, then
we refrain ourselves from criticizing other cultures, no matter how evil
some of their practices might be, the same way that we overlook our own
cultural flaws.
Moreover, if morality is relative to one’s culture, is this very statement
subject also to this same relativity? “If everything is relative, then the very
truth of relativism would also be relative.” In here, the logic of relativism
self-destructs. Ethical Relativism appears to be self-contradictory and
inconsistent… if the moral relativist insists on the legitimacy of his view,
then he/she is proposing a theory that must be accepted by everyone…
which is against what he/she is teaching. It seems then, that one who
styles oneself as a moral relativist encounters difficulty in being self-
consistent and in acting in accordance with one’s own moral claim.
2. On the Argument from Respect
Tolerance is either not always good or always a virtue. A lot of people
would argue that tolerance should be tempered with a sense of outrage in
the face of extreme evil. There is clearly a limit to what and when actions
can be reasonably tolerated. To tolerate what is evil can never be a virtue.
3. On the Psychological Argument
One of the most important and crucial of all these factors (in fact for the
Existentialist philosophers this is the most important, if not the sole
element) is the exercise of the person’s freedom of choice or free will. This
implies that the person’s morality is a primary function of his/her own free
volition. What one is – is nothing but a result of the decisions that he/she
constantly makes. The human person then becomes the sole creator of
his/her values, nothing more and nothing less. One’s moral development
or formation, therefore, is entirely a matter of decision, not condition.
4. On the Argument from Conformity
The obvious problem with this view is that it makes the majority as the
only true and legitimate voice of what is moral or not. It is them that makes
or decides what is good and bad. Thus, morality is simply dependent of
what the majority wants of decides. What is good and bad is reducible to a
kind of social contract or a matter of group consensus. The logical
implication of this is very clear and somewhat terrifying: The majority is
always right! They can never be wrong! This claim has terrible
consequences that perhaps most of us find too difficult to accept.
5. On the Provability Argument
Granting, for the sake of argument, that indeed we are uncertain about the
morality of some of our actions and decisions, and cannot really “prove”
them beyond any reasonable doubt. This does not mean that it has no
answer whatsoever. Even if there were no solid way to know moral truths,
5
GE Eth – Ethics
it would not follow that there are no such truths. It may be that some truths
are forever hidden from us ordinary and limited mortals. But the very
statement that they are hidden paradoxically confirms that they exist.
Conclusion
As we see, Ethical Relativism is not just a naïve and simple moral theory.
Its arguments and justifications are firmly rooted in good number of points. This
probably explains its persistent and perennial appeal and popularity tot eh
contemporary mind, especially to the young, to the so-called “millenials,” who
have become too suspicious and even impervious to the moral absolutes
adhered to and preached zealously by the older generation.
Admittedly, one “can understand the appeal of Cultural Relativism…
despite its shortcomings. It is an attractive theory [for sure] because it is based
on genuine insight: that many of the practices and attitudes we find natural are
only cultural products. Keeping this through in mind is important if we want to
avoid arrogance and be open to new ideas. These are [indeed] important points
[that should] not be taken lightly.”
Indeed, Ethical Relativism looks formidable, especially at first glance, but
upon closer examination, reveals that it too, contains number of complications
and inconsistencies.
But, in spite of its glaring and subtle flaws and shortcomings, Ethical
Relativism is not really refuted (as in totally and categorically debunked and
undermined). What the previous presentation only accomplished, if at all, “is to
show that Ethical Relativism is not as reasonable or as sound as many of us
might have thought and believed.”
Of course, to be fair, Ethical Relativism does contain some important
truths and valuable truths. Truths which are difficult to ignore but definitely, not
the whole truth. Thus, in the end, it is clear that the reasonable thing to do is to
take and seriously consider the theory’s good points, and learn from, and be
cautious of its concomitant weaknesses.
To be submitted: “Individual reflection paper on the positive and negative
Filipino cultural values and traits.”
6
GE Eth – Ethics
