Sumner's Theory Of Ethical Relativism

Humans often wonder why others have acted in a way that is against the observer’s morals. How could the United States have Japanese Internment camps during WWII? How could the Huns physically tear people apart in the villages they raided? How could the Hutus create and engage in the Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsis? Sumner answers this question with ethical relativism: morality is relative to the time and place. However, Moore refutes this argument by bringing up the moral complications ethical relativism raises. By explaining ethical relativism and its supporting arguments, it is clear to see how that although the theory appears correct, a simple implication tears the theory of its validity. Ethical Relativism is the idea that different cultures, societies, and subcultures all have their own morals that are relative to their specific group. These guidelines for moral behavior …show more content…
One of Moore’s most common criticism is the idea of conflicting moral and immoral behavior. If ethical relativism is true, then one person’s action can simultaneously be considered as both right and wrong if they are in multiple groups or subgroups. For example, in the United States abortion is legal and thus considered moral behavior. However, several religions see abortion as taking the life of a person, making the action a grave immoral act. United States citizens can also belong to one of the pro-life religious groups, which creates a dilemma where abortion is both moral and immoral to these citizens at the same time. Moore continues, stating morality and immorality are mutually exclusive, and one action cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. Because of the implications of defining morality with ethical relativism, Moore’s argument tears down Sumner’s