Dixon 1

Rina Dixon

Miles

Pre AP English

22 April 2018

Morals Are Relative

Henry David Thoreau once stated that, “the only obligation which I have a right to

assume is to do at any time what I think right.” This demonstrates the idea that a person’s moral

compass is shaped trhough society and culture which can affect someone’s views on topics from

diets to murder. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal moral code that everyone

was meant to follow. It proves that the laws that society put into place do not have to be true to

everyone and that a person’s morality is completely relative to their cultural status and the

societal rules forced upon them.

One of the main proponents of moral relativism the is differences in people’s culture. For

example, people who are Hindu don’t eat beef because the cow is a sacred animal to them, where

many people who are not Hindu eat beef on a regular basis. Due to their cultural upbringing,

their diet was altered in a way that many people deem as absurd. If we had one singular moral

code, then many cultures would be invalidated and the entire world would homogeneous. In an

essay about moral relativity, Emrys Westacott states that “the beliefs and practices of human

beings are best understood by grasping them in relation to the cultural context in which they

occur.” Westacott shows that differences in cultural values can explain why a group of people

think and act certain way based on all of their personal moral compasses. He goes on to explain

that some visitors to these cultures would be confused and worry for the safety of the people, but
 Dixon 2

to them it is completely normal. The idea that people have the right to choose what is right or

wrong is based largely on that person's culture.

Many moral ideas can be examples of this, even though most people agree that they are

wrong. Almost all people can agree that taking someone’s life is a bad thing to do, but not

everyone has to think that way. The idea that murder could be morally right to someone despite

society’s laws and influence that it is wrong demonstrates the idea of moral relativism. Murder,

even though it is much more drastic and on an extreme end of the spectrum, is still subject to

moral relativity. In a philosophical article about moral relativism, the author states, “All human

laws involve some moral principle being enforced by threat of consequences. Speed limits are

enforced on most roads because of a moral conviction that risking other people’s lives is wrong.

The same is true for murder, theft, perjury, fraud, and so forth” (Unknown 4). The article shows

that murder is included in the same category as theft and fraud etc. In addition to this, there is the

idea of someone raised outside of the current legal system in isolation. That person, who

wouldn’t be exposed to the morality of society, could have completely different views on murder

and many other of society's ideas about morality. Someone else might argue that overpopulation

will eventually destroy the world, which gives that person their own bent morals on murder, and

ultimately changes their outlook on life. They might see killing someone as helping the world

instead of hurting it in their eyes.

On the other hand, many people believe in moral absolutism, the opposite of moral

relativism. It is defined by Luke Mastin as “the ethical belief that there are absolute standards

against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong,

regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of

the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions” (Mastin 1).
 Dixon 3

However, if there were a single set of morals the world would result in uniformity. Consider how

having only a singular moral system is much more problematic than having many of them, just

as how having only one thing on a restaurant menu doesn’t make sense. If every moral system is

an option on a menu, than having only one would eliminate the freedom of choice and thought,

versus having options which would provide diversity. In addition to this, with the dominance of

moral relativism, than all laws would become subject to each person’s opinion. If morals are just

opinions than they do not require justification. Then many moral paths can open up and be just as

valid as the one before, which is how morality should viewed by people, as a path with many

options. Instead of having one universal moral system, there are many and that is much more

effective.

Overall, many environmental factors can influence a person’s morality just as well as

societal ethics and cultural upbringing. All objects of debate in morality, even murder, are

subject to relativism because that all just a person’s opinions which do not require justification.

People have the right to choose what morals they should follow because there is no way for there

to be only one system, and fractions of society, often those outside of mainstream acceptance,

will always defy the morality forced upon them.

Citations
 Dixon 4

Mastin, Luke. “Moral Absolutism.” Realism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy,

Jan. 2009, www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html.

“Moral Relativism.” AllAboutPhilosophy.org, www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-relativism.

htm.

Westacott, Emrys. “Moral Relativism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/

moral-re/.