The Four Forms Of Ethical Relativism

Good Essays
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

  • Decent Essays

    14292768 Word Count: 1070 Error Theory Versus the World Among many relevant philosophical theories are objectivism, relativism, and nihilism. Unlike the other two theories, nihilism states that no moral claims are true. In support of this theory, nihilism strongly depends on error theory to back up its claims. Error theory states that moral claims are simply a means to describing the moral features of everything going on around the world; however, the theory also claims that there are no moral features in the world, which in turn means that no moral claims can be completely true. Error theory has very strong claims, a distinct difference than other theories, and is also a very legitimate theory with strong support behind it.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    With moral claims based in ethical relativism you get moral truths that are both right and wrong and contradict each other. You can end up with one of two results, either you have no moral claims, or no moral disagreement. Relativist dismiss the idea of moral disagreements, even though it is the main selling point of ethical relativism. I believe that moral disagreements exist and in order to have a moral debate one must be able to make a moral claim based upon more than an opinion, however I do recognize that moral disagreements are not as wide spread as we think. I believe that many of our moral debates can be rooted in similar values, we simply have different ways of expressing…

    • 1010 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moral relativism is a commonly held position among many. This could be due to the regard for the value of tolerance or the truth in descriptive moral relativism. But my argument will be against meta-ethical moral relativism: there exists moral truths but these truths are not absolutes but relative. If morality is relative, there is no ultimate right or wrong. Because, there isn’t an objective point of reference to differentiate between right and wrong.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cultural and Subjective Relativism is that are no independent truths, all truths are relevant. They might be subjective; however, it’s relative. Relativism tries to show us that moral beliefs are true for us, but might not necessarily be true to another party. Cultural and Subjective Relativism is a form of moral relativism, it conveys that moral truth should be judges by the moral code of the relevance to society and culture. Cultural and Subjective Relativist like to think that society has different moral codes and the moral codes should not be compared because there is no moral measure…

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In “How Not to Answer Moral Questions,” Regan asserts that moral truth is independent of one’s moral judgment, thus making moral truth a universal reality. In “Moral Isolationism,” Midgley argues that one can morally judge another culture if individual understanding is present. Despite their cohesive conclusions, there is not harmony between the two theories’ premises. Regan’s view on universal moral truth directly rejects Midgley’s idea that moral truth relies on a complete understanding behind the justification of another’s moral judgment. If moral questions were approached the way Regan believes they should be, the “isolating barriers” that Midgley criticized would not be within question, because morality is not relative or…

    • 1516 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moreover, it is not clear people are less motivated about non-universal values beliefs. People may vigorously defend cooperation between cultures and condemn uncooperative cultures. If people were to look at other intolerant cultures that are attempting to disrupt such cooperation between cultures they would be motivated to defend these varying non-universal values. They would defend non-universal values because they would understand that there is no one truth only moral system, only moral systems that severe or do not serve the human…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    With that definition I would be sure this is true, but some people disagree with this. The Moral Disagreement argument stats this, 1(a) If CR is true, one cannot engage in rational moral disagreements with members of one’s culture or with members of different cultures. 2(a) One can engage in such rational moral…

    • 1526 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to David Hume, morality is something that is unable to be created via reason alone. Primarily since because ideologies are incapable of motivating us enough to act. As result, according to Hume, morality comes from emotions. Our emotions make the judgment on what is right or wrong, and that leads us to approve or disapprove of the act. We may reason why exactly or the many different scenarios where an action or duty may appear moral at first glance, what W.D.…

    • 1013 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For proponents of moral perception, we get, at the very least, some of our moral knowledge non-inferentially through perception of the moral facts. The most plausible versions of moral perception refrain from making the much stronger thesis that all of our moral knowledge is justified non-inferentially through perception. If the stronger thesis were true,…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Which Pojamn rules as impossible through a subjective lens, then Pojman posits that conventionalism cannot possibly work to resolve cross-cultural issue through the lens of conventionalism (Fieser 49). He postulates that there is a better suited ethical theory. Which he affirms is moral objectivism, the view that there exists as least one moral principle that all societies and cultures can adhere to. Pojman attempts to prove that there is a universally valid moral principle that is binding on all rational agents and he posits that if an individual does not adhere to this principle, this individual is stupid and…

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays