Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer
Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of Culture, diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree:
We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46)
Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of "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.
Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.
Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.
Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?
Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.
For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.
But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.
FAQs
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.
Is ethical relativism good or bad? ›
The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. Slavery is a good example of this. Two hundred years ago in America, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable.
What is ethical relativism Quizlet? ›
Ethical Relativism. The belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, cultural, or historical period.
What are the arguments against ethical moral relativism? ›
Opponents of moral relativism often argue that there is a universal morality, a code of right and wrong that unites all of existence. They also claim that moral relativism allows for actions that are immoral, like slavery or genocide, simply by framing them as a cultural value.
What is an example of ethical relativism in real life? ›
The Best Ethical Relativism Real-World Examples
- Child Labor – Ethical relativism is evident in the varying perspectives on child labor. ...
- Cultural Practices – Different cultures have unique customs and practices. ...
- Capital Punishment – The acceptance or rejection of the death penalty varies across countries.
All moral claims are right within their own cultural context. Example of ethical relativism concerning how women ought to dress (Cartoon by Malcolm Evans). The argument for ethical relativism is based on the ethnographic fact that different cultures around the world subscribe to other moral values.
What is relativism and why is it wrong? ›
Normative relativism is the view that it is wrong to judge or interfere with the moral beliefs and practices of cultures that operate with a different moral framework to one's own, that what goes on in a society should only be judged by the norms of that society.
What are the two forms of ethical relativism? ›
There are two main forms of ethical relativism: cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. In short, ethical relativists believe that moral ideas are only a matter of societal norms or personal opinion, and are not binding upon others.
What is relativism in today's world? ›
It means that all cultures have their own beliefs and that there is no universal or absolute standard to judge those cultural norms. "Cultural relativism leads us to accept that cultures are foundationally different, with differing social and ethical norms.
Who is associated with ethical relativism? ›
Beginning in the 1960s and '70s, ethical relativism was associated with postmodernism, a complex philosophical movement that questioned the idea of objectivity in many areas, including ethics. Many postmodernists regarded the very idea of objectivity as a dubious invention of the modern—i.e., post-Enlightenment—era.
The opposite view- right and wrong is objective and universal – is often called non relativism, or Ethical Objectivism. assume that there is some objective standard of right or wrong, independent of what I might believe which would serve as a standard of judgment, but that is exactly what relativism denies.
Is moral progress possible in ethical relativism? ›
(3) Moral progress is impossible: According to relativism, there is no such thing as moral progress. In order for PROGRESS to occur, there must be a change for the BETTER. But, in order for something to get “better” there must be some standard that is being more closely adhered to over time.
What is the disadvantage of relativism ethics? ›
It challenges the idea of universal moral truths. However, cultural relativism is problematic as it cannot criticize objectively bad practices like genocide. While cultures do have some differing moral codes, there is also significant agreement across cultures on basic moral rules necessary for societies to function.
What are the errors of ethical relativism? ›
Some critics argue that it leads to incoherence, as it suggests that incompatible moral judgments can both be true . Others argue that ethical relativism undermines the possibility of objective moral truths and can lead to moral relativism, where anything can be considered morally acceptable .
What is the danger of moral relativism in ethics? ›
Accepting this moral wrong because of moral relativism based on culture is dangerous as it leads to indifference. If we cannot judge and moral rightness depends on certain cultures, then “anything goes”. Moral relativism leads to moral paralysis and indifference.
What is moral relativism in simple terms? ›
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”
How do you use ethical relativism in a sentence? ›
The question remains whether one should reject the concept of pluralism which reflects moral and ethical relativism.
What is an example of ethical relativism in business? ›
Many oil companies, for example, operate in the United States which professes that men and women should be treated as equals and where bribery is considered wrong, while simultaneously operating in several Middle Eastern countries where women are regarded as subordinate to men and bribery is widely accepted.
What is one form of ethical relativism called? ›
Normative ethical relativism is a theory, which claims that there are no universally valid moral principles. Normative ethical relativism theory says that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times.
