Ethical or moral relativism is the view that “there is no measure of right and wrong other than the standards of one’s society”. This means that proponents of ethical relativism assert that “all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice” (Larsson 10). Additionally, ethical relativism is based on two major claims. First, that a moral judgement is true (correct) relative to one and not correct (true) relative to another thinker (or value system). The second core claim on which relativists based their theory is that there is no unique admissible value system or unique, authoritative thinker through which the correctness of all moral judgement can be assessed (Kölbel, 2). This means that no society with better values has better values than others. Opponents of ethical criticism claim moral absolutism, a theory that posits that morality is universally binding to all people, in all places and at all times. Thus, despite the absolutes claim that morals apply to all people, it is obvious that there is no moral demand. While ethical relativism provides a way of appreciating diversity, it undermines the concept of absolute truth, which holds that morals should apply to every person. Failure to adhere to absolutism makes it difficult to determine right from wrong and becomes inconsistent and arbitrary over time and across societies.
One criticism of ethical relativism is the concept of moral infallibility. According to Landau, moral infallible is the view that “ethical relativism makes the deeper commitment of each person or society morally infallible, no matter whether such commitments reflect ignorance, bias, sloppy thinking” (Landau 282). This means there is no single way to judge a society’s practices from the outside since there is no common framework for resolving moral conflicts or reaching moral compromise among members of various societies. This way, ethical relativism does not allow the chance to criticize our society’s morals and values, as there is no standard against which society’s rules can be judged deficient. Critics also argue that despite the disagreement regarding ethics, it does not mean there cannot be objective truth, and some moral beliefs are culturally relative while others are not. By understanding moral infallibility, we can understand the inherent problems in the ethical relativism theory since it makes an individual or society’s basic commitment morally infallible and deprives members of society of a means of criticizing their morals and values.
Another important criticism of ethical relativism is the “moral equivalence”. Moral equivalence holds that ethical relativism leads to moral equivalence, meaning that all values, actions and behaviours are considered equivalent despite their consequences. Landau notes moral equivalence is the belief that “everyone’s basic moral views are plausible abs everyone else’s” (Landau, 280). However, one can argue that some actions are morally reprehensible than others due to their negative consequences on individuals or society. A good example is how murder is harshly treated due to the irreversible harm it causes than lying, which causes temporary inconvenience. By promoting the idea of moral equivalence, ethical relativism undermines inherent differences in moral values while failing to address the conflicts effectively. Thus, moral equivalence criticism exposes the weakness in the theory’s ability to provide meaningful guidance when resolving conflicts that arise from divergent ethical perspectives.
By combining moral infallibility and moral equivalence criticism, the inherent flaws in ethical relativism are identifiable, undermining the theory’s credibility. At the same time, the concept of moral infallibility exposes the paradoxical nature of the theory since it denies the possibility of moral error but advocates for subjective morality. Since it denies the notion of objective moral truths, ethical relativism creates a self-referential loop where moral judgement is immune to evaluation and criticism and undermines the foundations of ethics as a system of wrong or right. On the other hand, moral equivalence highlights the inadequacy of ethical relativism in addressing ethical and moral values disputes. Since it treats all moral views equally valid despite the implications, ethical relativism fails to provide a framework for evaluating the legitimacy of different ethical positions (Landau, 291). Consequently, it limits the theory’s ability to provide meaningful guidance when navigating challenging moral issues, contributing to its impracticality.
To sum up, the criticism of moral infallibility and moral equivalence shows that ethical relativism is inherently flawed and unable to serve as a reliable, ethical theory. Ethical relativism fails to distinguish between valid and invalid moral perspectives while denying the existence of objective moral truths, thereby undermining its practicability and credibility. Viable ethical theories require a system of right and wrong that can withstand scrutiny and provide guidance when navigating moral guidance. Rejecting moral absolutism and its inability to resolve differing moral perspectives is inadequate when addressing moral debate or establishing a coherent ethical framework. Therefore, destroying ethical relativism as a viable ethical theory requires us to recognize its internal limits and inconsistencies to provide strong grounds for ethics.
Works Cited
Larsson, Kim. “Moral Relativism or Moral Universalism?: A Comparative Case Study of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Recommendations towards Myanmar and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” .2019.10.https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1395681/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Kölbel, M. “Moral Relativism”. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.d. 8-10. http://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/files/user126/1422207957-MoralRelativismREPabsFinal.pdf
Shafer-Landau, R. “Ethical Relativism”. Chapter 19.278-290.http://people.whitman.edu/~frierspr/ShaferLandauEthicalRelativism.pdf
write