Ethics

Ethical Relativism

What is Ethical Relativism?

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of
one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral
norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally
right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist,
there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally
applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a
society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there
can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching
agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.

● the prescriptive view that (1) different groups of people ought to have
different ethical standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong, (2) these
different beliefs are true in their respective societies, and (3) these
different beliefs are not instances of a basic moral principle.

A. The ethical relativist often derives support for his position by two basic
mistakes:

1. The relativist confuses cultural (or sociological) relativism with ethical

relativism, but cultural relativism is a descriptive view and ethical
relativism is a prescriptive view. (E.g., cultural relativism describes the way
the way people actually behave, and ethical relativism prescribes the way
people ought to behave.
2. The ethical relativist often argues as follows:
○ An absolute ethical standard has never been proved beyond doubt
in the history of thought.

○ Thus, an absolute ethical standard does not exist.

a. This argument is an instance ad ignorantiam fallacy.

p is unproved.
not-p is true.
Ethical Relativism
The term "ethical relativism" encompasses a number of different beliefs, but they all
agree that there are no universal, permanent criteria to determine what may or may not
be an ethical act. God granted no divine command, and human nature displays no
common law. Consequences have no bearing because each person or society may
interpret the “rightness” of each consequence differently.

Ethical relativism teaches that a society’s ethics evolve over time and change to fit
circumstances. Ethics refers to a corporate determination of what is right or appropriate
versus what is wrong or inappropriate. This is as opposed to morals, which refers to an
individual’s determination of right and wrong. Morality and ethics do not always align;
someone may consider it morally wrong to eat meat but also believe it is unethical for a
government to force others to be vegetarian. Or a parent may agree with the state’s law
that prohibits underage drinking but may allow his own child to take a sip of champagne
at a family function.

There are several facets of ethical relativism, which states that universal truth is either a
myth or impossible to determine, but at the same time admits that ethical behavior does
exist. The various views within ethical relativism stem from different opinions on
whether ethics are based on culture, careful analysis of the world, or personal opinion.

Ethical relativism is a philosophical position that asserts that morality is relative,

meaning that moral judgments and principles are not universally valid or applicable.
Instead, they are dependent on cultural, societal, or individual perspectives. In other
words, what is considered morally right or wrong can vary from one culture, society, or
individual to another.
There are different forms of ethical relativism, including:

​ Cultural Relativism:
● Cultural relativism posits that moral standards are culturally specific, and
what is deemed morally acceptable in one culture may not be in another.
Cultural relativists argue against making cross-cultural moral judgments,
emphasizing the importance of understanding and respecting diverse
cultural norms.
● Cultural relativism is often held by anthropologists who want to analyze a
culture without bringing in their own biases. Cultural relativism says that
"right" and "wrong" should only be considered within the context of the
culture and environmental influences of a society. If a society says
something is good, then it is good for them. Cultural relativism does not
judge any given system of ethics.
 ● Cultural relativism leads some anthropologists to decry missionary activity
among indigenous peoples. The thinking is that a culture should be left
undisturbed and that evangelizing a lost tribe is tantamount to destroying
the culture. Some will even defend practices such as cannibalism and
headhunting in the name of cultural relativism—who are we to say that
another culture is wrong? We don’t eat people, and they do; it’s all relative.
​ Individual Relativism:
● Individual relativism extends the idea of relativism to the level of individual
beliefs. It suggests that morality is a matter of personal choice, and what
is morally right or wrong is subject to individual perspectives. This form of
relativism emphasizes personal autonomy in determining one's moral
principles.
​ Normative Ethical Relativism:
● Normative ethical relativism goes beyond descriptive claims about cultural
or individual differences and asserts that there is no objective basis for
judging one set of moral principles as superior to another. It holds that all
moral principles are equally valid within their respective contexts.

Ethical relativism is often contrasted with ethical objectivism, which asserts that there

are objective moral truths that hold independently of cultural or individual beliefs.

Objectivism maintains that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of

cultural or personal perspectives.

Critics of ethical relativism argue that it leads to moral skepticism, undermines the

possibility of moral progress, and may justify practices that are widely considered

ethically problematic. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that ethical relativism

fosters tolerance, cultural understanding, and respect for diverse moral perspectives.

The debate between relativism and other ethical theories is a longstanding and complex

one in the field of philosophy.

What are the Arguments FOR Ethical Relativism?
The five arguments that support ethical relativism

Ethical relativism is a position in ethics that suggests moral principles are relative to the
cultural, societal, or individual context in which they arise. Here are some arguments
that support ethical relativism:

​ 1. Cultural Diversity Argument:

​ Ethical relativism holds that different cultures have different moral codes and
that there is no objective standard by which to judge one culture's beliefs as
superior to another's.
● One of the central arguments for ethical relativism is based on the
observation of the wide diversity of moral practices and beliefs across
different cultures. Advocates argue that this diversity supports the idea
that moral principles are culturally dependent, and what is considered
morally right or wrong can vary significantly from one culture to another.
● Ethical relativists often argue that the vast cultural diversity observed in
the world implies a diversity of moral beliefs. Different cultures may have
different values, norms, and moral codes. From this perspective, there is
no single, objective moral standard that can be universally applied to all
cultures.
​ 2. Cultural Tolerance and Understanding:
● Ethical relativism is often associated with an emphasis on tolerance and
understanding between different cultures. Proponents argue that
recognizing the relativity of moral values can promote a more
open-minded and accepting attitude toward diverse cultural practices,
discouraging ethnocentrism.
● Ethical relativists argue that their perspective helps to avoid
ethnocentrism, which is the tendency to judge other cultures by the
standards of one's own. They claim that recognizing the cultural relativity
of moral values promotes tolerance and understanding, as it discourages
the imposition of one culture's moral framework onto another.
​ 3. Avoidance of Moral Imperialism:
● Ethical relativists contend that their perspective helps avoid the imposition
of one culture's moral standards onto another. They argue against a form
of "moral imperialism" where a particular set of moral values is seen as
universally superior and should be enforced across all cultures.
● Ethical relativists sometimes assert that their position accurately reflects
the way people think and behave. They argue that individuals tend to
 derive their moral values from their cultural and societal context.
Observing the variety of moral practices across cultures, they contend that
ethical relativism provides a more accurate description of the moral
landscape.
​ 4. Prevention of Dogmatism:
● Ethical relativism is seen by some as a way to prevent moral dogmatism.
By acknowledging the relativity of moral principles, proponents argue that
individuals and societies are more likely to engage in open and humble
dialogue about ethical issues, rather than asserting a single, absolute
moral truth.
● Ethical relativists suggest that their position helps avoid the dogmatic
assertion of a single, objective moral truth. They contend that being open
to different moral perspectives allows for a more humble and
open-minded approach to ethical discussions. It acknowledges that there
may be multiple legitimate ways of understanding and approaching ethical
questions.
​ 5. Respect for Individual Autonomy:
● Ethical relativism is not only applied at the cultural level but also at the
individual level. Supporters argue that individuals should have the
autonomy to determine their own moral values, free from external
imposition. This perspective supports the idea that individuals have the
right to make moral choices based on their own values and beliefs.
● Advocates of ethical relativism often argue that each culture should be
respected for its autonomy and right to determine its own moral values.
This perspective emphasizes cultural self-determination and rejects the
idea that an external standard should be applied universally.

While these arguments provide some support for ethical relativism, it's important to
note that this perspective has faced considerable criticism, as mentioned in the
previous response. The debate between ethical relativism and other ethical theories,
such as ethical objectivism, continues to be a complex and ongoing discussion in the
field of ethics.
What are the arguments AGAINST Ethical Relativism?
The eight arguments that against ethical relativism

Ethical relativism is the view that ethical principles and moral values are dependent on
the cultural, societal, or individual context in which they arise. While this perspective has
its proponents, there are also several arguments against ethical relativism. Here are
some of the common criticisms:

1. Lack of Moral Progress:

● Critics argue that ethical relativism implies that there is no objective
standard by which moral progress can be measured. If each culture or
individual determines its own moral code, there is no basis for evaluating
whether one moral perspective is better or more developed than another.
2. Inherent Contradictions:
● Ethical relativism can lead to contradictions. If all moral principles are
subjective and equally valid, then the principle that "all moral principles are
relative" is itself just a relative principle, and one could argue that it is not
universally true.
3. Cultural Infallibility:
● Ethical relativism implies that every culture's moral beliefs are equally
valid. This raises the question of whether a society's moral values, even
those that condone harmful practices or violate human rights, should be
considered immune from criticism.
4. Individual Autonomy vs. Cultural Authority:
● Ethical relativism sometimes clashes with the idea of individual autonomy.
If individuals are bound by the moral values of their culture, it may
undermine the idea that individuals have the right to challenge and
question cultural norms in the pursuit of moral improvement.
5. Moral Disagreement:
● The existence of moral disagreement between cultures or individuals is
often cited as evidence against ethical relativism. If moral principles were
entirely relative, there would be no basis for disagreement, as each
perspective would be equally valid.
6. Practical Implications:
● Critics argue that ethical relativism can lead to problematic consequences
in practice. For example, it might be used to justify actions that are widely
considered morally reprehensible, such as human rights abuses, simply
because they are accepted within a particular culture.
7. Undermining Moral Motivation:
 ● Some argue that ethical relativism can undermine individuals' motivation
to improve morally. If there is no objective moral truth, there may be less
incentive for individuals or societies to strive for moral betterment.
8. Logical Inconsistencies:
● Critics point out that ethical relativism can lead to logical inconsistencies.
For instance, if a relativist argues that one should be tolerant of all moral
views, they may face a contradiction when confronted with intolerant
moral perspectives.

It's important to note that these criticisms don't necessarily disprove ethical relativism,
but they highlight challenges and concerns associated with this perspective. Ethical
debates often involve a complex interplay of different philosophical positions and
perspectives.