The Four Forms Of Ethical Relativism

1153 Words 5 Pages
My purpose in this essay is to define ethical relativism along with what the different forms that ethical relativism can take. I will describe what sorts of arguments can be expressed in favor of ethical relativism, what sorts of arguments can be derived against ethical relativism. I disagree with the moral relativism theory because it denies that there are certain actions which are obviously perceived to be undeniably evil, and the theory contradicts itself by claiming that there are no absolute objective truths.
Moral (ethical) relativism also known as moral subjectivism, denies that moral values and norms are objective, absolute or universal. Instead moral relativism suggests that values and norms are relative to the subjective preference
…show more content…
Individual relativism is the belief that moral values and norms are merely expressions of subjective preferences of individual people. An example of this theory would be me believing vegetables are disgusting while you believe vegetables are absolutely delicious. This form of relativism states that what one believes must be true; therefore, I'm right in believing vegetables are disgusting. However, you would also be right in believing that they are delicious. Social relativism implies the belief that moral values and norms are based off of the dominant attitudes within a given society or culture. The same action completed in once culture may be morally right to them, however, the same action done in a different culture could be seen as morally wrong. Strong relativism suggests that absolute, universal, and objective truths about morality do not exist. While on the other hand, weak relativism suggests that certain basic values and norms appear to be universal (in many cultures) but they are different in the way that they understand each of the values and norms. An example of this relativism would to have two cultures agree that life is to be valued, but each culture could disagree on what exact value they put on …show more content…
An argument for moral relativism would be that most objective truths can be presented based on reliable decision procedures. However, there is no decision procedure that is able to show the objective truths or falsities of moral beliefs and judgements. I do believe that this is a fair argument because it is considerably harder to prove and explain a truth about a moral belief than it is to prove say a mathematic objective truth. Since there are persistent disagreements regarding values and norms, it implies that moral beliefs are strictly opinions or attitudes created by an individual or a society and therefore cannot be considered objectively true or false. If you were to believe in moral objectivism it would suggest that you are incompatible with tolerance and open mindedness. Moral relativism would express the understanding that people have different beliefs about moral judgements, rather than being intolerant about it and instead forcing them to change and believe your ways like moral objectivism would imply. I do also agree that the widespread existence of moral uncertainty is evidence that moral beliefs and judgments cannot be objective. If you were to follow an objective truth that you believe, you would follow it with 100 percent certainty and never have any confusion on what you should do. However, this isn’t how people in general behave, the world is not strictly black and white.

Related Documents