Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a particular standpoint and also that no standpoint has the absolute power to determine what is right or false over other standpoints. For example, taking a controversial issue such as polygamy, moral relativism would compare the views of certain groups such as Muslims against Christians. While Christians believe that polygamy is wrong and against the moral codes in Christianity, Muslims are permitted to marry up to four wives. Therefore, factors such as culture and religion come into play in moral relativism to compare how different standpoints determine what the society believes to be morally right or wrong. The fact that Christians believe that polygamy is wrong does not mean that they should impose that view on Muslims and the vice versa. Moral relativism is an important ingredient when expanding one’s worldview and accepting that no worldview is superior over others. Unlike moral absolutism, moral relativism holds that there are no absolute rules in morality and any moral argument is determined by the standpoint the debaters decide to employ.
Objectivity and Moral Relativism
The relative nature or relativity of morals has been considered an argument against the objectivity of ethics. According to Magni (2017), the view portraying moral relativism as a barrier to the objectivity of ethics is wrong. In fact, an objective analysis of ethics takes a more relative approach since different people are socialized differently and hence they hold different views. Some relative views towards morals and ethics are quite controversial. In that case, moral relativism has been considered a barrier since it grants people the latitude to make moral decisions and interpret ethics in a flexible and democratic manner. Moral relativism tends towards a more democratic society. For example, on a controversial issue such as abortion, the society has remained heavily divided while struggling to integrate the moral and legal aspects of the matter. While a huge section of the society believe that abortion should be made legal, another section holds a different moral perspective. The two perspectives are not superior to each other and so none can be dismissed. Magni (2017) argues that the strongest form of meta-ethical objectivism maintains the claim of objectivity in all these three senses; ales related to an ontological point of view, a weaker version, and may limit itself to the first two senses. Therefore, as much as moral relativism can be applied, it should be flexible enough to allow the use of rational methods to determine what is right or wrong. One of the reasons arguments against moral relativism fail is due to the fact that it can easily be integrated to moral objectivism. With an objective approach, factions and rationales cane be used to reach a conclusion on a given moral argument.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moral Relativism and Moral Realism
Moral relativism comes in different forms and varieties. According to Tannsjo (2017), one variety is a moral doctrine upon which humans are expected and called upon to respect different cultures and standpoints. Tannsjo (2017) argues that using the moral doctrine, people are required to allow other people to solve their moral problems based on the socialization they have been exposed to. Moral relativism and moral realism have been considered deeply in moral arguments. According to Harman (2014), moral relativism does not hinder moral realism. Moral realism tries to use no subjectivism when making decisions. The course of action is always determined based on facts or the fact that they are virtuously moral. Since moral relativism and moral realism are not counter-arguments to each other, moral relativists use that as a point of reference when advocating for moral relativism. Moral relativism is not a mere subjective approach to moral arguments but rather a flexible approach that tries to use a realist approach that respects divergent views based on peoples’ exposure and socialization.
Moral Relativism: Supporting Views
Wreen (2018) argues that in the definition of moral relativism, it should be noted that it is compatible with moral objectivity or subjectivity, it does not contrast moral absolutism, and that it is not the same as moral pluralism. Furthermore, moral relativism contrasts nihilism and universalism (Wreen, 2018). On moral expressivism, Brogaard (2012) argues that moral relativism escapes the wrath and hardcore views faced by moral absolutism since the former allows flexibility when making conclusions about moral issues. Using the perceived-response theory, the question that arises in any moral debate is whether there are any moral centered properties in a given conclusion. Moral-expressivism as a form of moral anti-realism holds that there are no moral facts that moral standpoints represent. As such, moral expressivism is not compatible with moral relativism since it does not respect the view that morality is not absolute in nature but rather a moving target determined by the person advancing a given argument. Therefore, for a moral theory to be compatible with moral relativism, it has to be flexible enough and embrace the view that moral positions are not absolute. Furthermore, it has to be realistic in nature and respect all standpoints since none is superior over others. Moral relativism is preferred in democratic societies since every person is allowed to think and express themselves freely without being coerced or forced to adopt moral positions held by other people.
Why Moral Relativism is Not a Good Meta-Ethical View
The arguments above have presented reasons why moral relativism is a good moral approach. While countering moral relativism, moral objectivism has been presented as the main argument since it proposes the presence of very specific truths and values in a given society. Moral objectivism, should not be mistaken to moral absolutism. Cultural metaethical relativism has been identified as one of the most pervasive form of moral relativism. Using this approach, the existence of objective morality is dismissed. If moral relativism fails to embrace objectivity, then it should be dismissed. As far as moral relativism allows cultural groups to continue observing their moral values and beliefs, sometimes it is important using a morally objective approach to set the record right. For example, one can consider the moral arguments raised for and against practices like female genital mutilation. The practice is still common among some groups in certain ethnic groups although it has been discouraged over the years. The fact that the groups practicing it consider it morally right should not be used as the basis to allow it. Therefore, the most serious challenge with moral relativism is that it allows some primitive views, beliefs and values to be carried into the future in the struggle to respect cultural autonomy. Moral relativism also reduces the chances of having an objective argument that relies on pure truth. Nonetheless, moral relativism should be more flexible to accommodate other moral arguments (Ryan, 2003). That is the only way it can persist the test of time.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the acceptance of moral relativism continues. From a metaethical perspective, no truth is absolute. Moral relativism is compatible to other views such as moral objectivism. Moral relativism contrasts nihilism and absolutism since the two views do not allow the flexibility needed when dealing with a diverse population. Moral relativism promotes cultural diversity since people are aware of other people’s cultural and religious beliefs and the fact that no moral standpoint is absolutely superior unless it is supported by the law. In some cases, a moral standpoint may be supported by the majority but still be debatable since it is not incorporated into law.
References
Brogaard, B. (2012). Moral Relativism and Moral Expressivism. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 50 (4), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00141.x
Magni, S. F. (2017). Objectivity and moral relativism. Ethics & Politics, XIX (2), 11-23.
Ryan, J. A. (2003). Moral relativism and the argument from disagreement. Journal of Social Philosophy, 34 (3), 377-386.
Tännsjö, T. (2007). Moral Relativism. Philosophical Studies, 135 (2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9083-2
Wreen, M. (2018). What Is Moral Relativism? Philosophy, 93 (3), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819117000614
