Pros And Cons Of Moral Relativism

How do we tell what is wrong from right? Ever since we were little, it has been instilled in us that actions such as stealing money is wrong and actions like providing aid to the elderly is right. Our sense of wrong and rightfulness is referred to morals, but there are many different branches tied to the common ground of morals. One of the branches of morals is moral realism which states that there are “objective moral facts (Atheism And The City).” These are the morals that have been engraved into our conscience so it seems like it is common sense that wrongful actions are indeed wrongful and vice versa for rightful actions. While this branch of morals is based off of concrete facts, meaning it is easier to teach to younger civilians, one …show more content…
Moral realism is easier to engrave what is wrong and right to a younger audience based on concrete facts, which the individual will most likely continue following the moral beliefs that were taught to them. Moral relativism, on the other hand, has a reference and proof why an action is wrongful or rightful. Both of these moral branches have a solid foundation on what is right and what is wrong. Moral realism does not have a solid background information on why it is taught that a certain action is right or wrong, so most citizens will blindly follow morals instilled in them from a young age. Moral relativism also has some blind and outdated followers since the supported information on morals is based off of past experience, which may or may not be adjusted to modern times. Followers of moral relativism also may act what is assumed to be inappropriate to another culture’s morals but is deemed appropriate to his or her own cultural morals. Either way, both moral branches are not very flexible and are very conservative in the modern times. If both moral branches are able to adapt to today’s morals, then both would be very plausible ways to distinguish wrongful and righteous