According to moral Relativism, moral decisions are not always objective; instead, they rely on the particular cultural, social, or personal context in which they are formed. Here are three of the most often discussed forms of moral Relativism; first, Cultural Relativism, in which this theory holds that a person’s or society’s moral ideals and views are shaped by the culture in which they live (Baghramian & Coliva, 2019). Moreover, this viewpoint holds that no objective moral principles apply to all cultures and that morality is a matter of cultural interpretation. The theory of cultural Relativism places significant emphasis on acknowledging and comprehending other cultural viewpoints and customs, even when they diverge from an individual’s moral convictions. For instance, polygamy is seen as ethically acceptable in some cultures but bad in others.
The second moral Relativism is Individual Relativism, also called moral subjectivism or personal Relativism; individual Relativism holds that moral judgments are a question of personal choice or opinion. Put another way, a person’s views, sentiments, or attitudes define what is ethically sound or wrong. Moral judgments are wholly subjective under this perspective, and there are no universally applicable objective moral facts or standards. For example, a meat-eater may see eating meat as totally okay, whereas a vegetarian may think it is immoral.
The third moral Relativism is Relational Relativism, whereby this theory centers on the notion that interpersonal interactions and connections between people or groups impact moral judgments. More so, it implies that morality may change according to the particulars of a situation, such as the connections among the parties involved and the environment in which it occurs. This viewpoint considers how social roles, trust, and power dynamics shape moral judgments (Baghramian & Coliva, 2019). For instance, while slavery was formerly seen as ethically acceptable in many civilizations, it is now commonly seen as morally repugnant. Generally, it is essential to remember that moral Relativism is a contentious philosophical stance that has generated much discussion among ethicists and philosophers. Its detractors contend that it might result in moral skepticism or the conviction that moral standards do not exist to govern human conduct.
Relationship Between Relativism and Individual Society
These moral relativisms relate to the individual and society in various ways: Cultural Relativism and Personal Viewpoint. Cultural Relativism contends that an individual’s moral convictions and values are heavily influenced by the culture in which they were reared. However, this is the viewpoint of a person inside a culture since they can think that their community’s moral standards and behaviors are correct and legitimate (Baghramian & Coliva, 2019). On the other hand, moral quandaries may also arise when they come across opposing cultural ideals or when their moral intuitions diverge from their society’s.
Cultural Relativism and Social Perspective: Cultural Relativism draws attention to many cultures’ moral practices and ideas. Nevertheless, it highlights how crucial it is to acknowledge and value these distinctions without necessarily passing judgment. This viewpoint may promote open communication and tolerance towards cultures with different moral standards. However, it may also provide difficulties in resolving cross-cultural ethical concerns, such as human rights breaches or international ethical norms.
Moral Subjectivism and Individual Perspective: Moral subjectivists hold that moral standards and views are very subjective and unique to each individual. They believe morality is a matter of personal choice or opinion and that attitudes, sentiments, and ideas determine what is ethically good or bad (Baghramian & Coliva, 2019). In addition, according to this viewpoint, people have a great deal of autonomy in choosing their moral values. Moral Subjectivism and Social Perspective: Moral subjectivism may result in a society where people have a variety of moral beliefs and ideals, which may cause moral diversity and conflicts. For instance, in a community like this, everyone’s moral opinions are seen as equally legitimate, making it challenging to develop accepted moral norms or settle moral disputes. It also encourages tolerance for conflicting moral viewpoints and individual autonomy in moral decision-making.
Relational Relativism and Individual Perspective: People who adhere to this theoretical framework acknowledge that their interactions and connections with others might impact their moral judgments. However, moral judgments could consider social roles, trust, and power relations. For instance, someone could forgive a close friend’s minor transgression more than a stranger.
Relational Relativism and Social Perspective: Relational Relativism recognizes the intricacy of moral circumstances and the influence of social interactions on moral conclusions. It may aid communities in comprehending how moral standards can change to fit various social situations and interpersonal dynamics. Additionally, if there are no distinct, broadly applicable moral rules to govern conduct, it might also give rise to worries about moral Relativism or contradiction. Generally, moral Relativism in all forms affects people individually and society as a whole.
Objections to Relativism
Several arguments against moral Relativism refute that morality is just situational and based on personal, social, or cultural circumstances. The following are three typical criticisms of Relativism, each with a thorough explanation:
The Moral Progress Objections
Moral Relativism’s detractors contend that it cannot consider the concept of moral advancement throughout time. However, it becomes more work to understand the idea that cultures may ethically progress or improve if morality is only relative and based on cultural or individual perceptions. For instance, moral Relativism would imply that a culture’s justification for slavery makes it ethically acceptable in that particular setting, making it hard to denounce as immoral. The argument against moral progress posits that moral principles or norms are moral truths independent of culture or individual variances (Wreen, 2019). For instance, many believe equality, non-violence, and human rights are universal and independent of cultural norms. More so, through the opposition and modification of unfair behaviors such as slavery, discrimination, and violence, these ideas have led to moral development throughout history.
Furthermore, moral relativists argue that moral development may still be explained within a relativistic framework as the development of moral convictions within a particular community or culture. They may claim that civilizations’ moral standards evolve throughout time due to shifting cultural contexts, attitudes, or viewpoints.
The Moral Disagreement Objection
This objection highlights that the prevalence of moral disagreement across cultures or people challenges moral Relativism. It becomes challenging to explain why there are enduring and intractable moral differences if morality is wholly subjective and there are no objective moral truths (Wreen, 2019). However, detractors contend that the presence of moral disagreement raises the possibility that there are objective moral principles or truths that individuals are referencing in moral discussions. For instance, when two people from different cultures disagree on how animals should be treated, it suggests that they both think there is a correct solution to the question—even if they cannot agree on the answer. Therefore, this criticism implies moral disagreement cannot be sufficiently explained by moral Relativism.
Moreover, moral relativists may argue that moral disagreements may still occur within relativistic frameworks because various people or cultures may see moral issues differently due to their experiences, beliefs, and social settings. In addition, some may argue that moral Relativism does not demand the existence of a single, objective moral truth but rather accepts the plurality of moral opinions.
The Moral Permissibility Objection
This objection raises the issue of whether moral Relativism can adequately justify the denunciation of morally repugnant acts, such as child abuse or genocide. However, if morality is relative, it is difficult to say that some behaviors are immoral under all conditions since certain groups or cultures may support or condone them. Detractors contend that moral Relativism cannot provide a strong justification for condemning some behaviors since they are so morally repugnant and widely accepted. For instance, regardless of cultural or personal viewpoints, the majority of people consider the Holocaust to have been a terrible moral tragedy and that it was immoral. Moral Relativism’s detractors argue that it cannot provide a compelling moral case against these behaviors.
Moral relativists may reply that certain behaviors are universally condemned, even in a relativistic context. However, they would contend that moral consensus across cultures and shared human values, not objective moral truths, is the source of this condemnation. They may also argue that moral intuitions that have evolved universally across cultures are reflected in identifying certain behaviors as immoral (Wreen, 2019). Therefore, these arguments draw attention to a few difficulties and critiques that moral relativism encounters while attempting to handle moral disputes, advancement, and the denunciation of grave moral wrongs. However, moral relativism proponents often address these criticisms sophisticatedly while upholding the relativistic viewpoint.
Relating Objections to Types of Relativism
Each objection relates to the three forms of Relativism: relational Relativism, individual Relativism (moral subjectivism), and cultural Relativism in different ways. The Moral Progress Argument, the objection to moral progress, which questions how moral progress—such as the abolition of slavery or the advancement of women’s rights—can be explained within a framework that views morality as wholly relative to a particular culture, challenges the idea of Cultural Relativism. Additionally, if there are no universal moral principles, then critics of cultural Relativism contend that it is difficult to explain how nations alter their moral standards throughout time. Moreover, Cultural relativism proponents can argue that cultures adjust their moral standards in reaction to changing conditions, ideals, or viewpoints within their particular cultural setting. Rather than adhering to external moral principles, they can believe that moral improvement is the outcome of internal changes.
Moral Subjectivism/Individual Relativism: This argument challenges moral subjectivism by posing how morality, if solely subjective, can account for a person’s moral growth or shift in opinions. Explaining moral development or change is challenging if everyone’s moral convictions depend only on their viewpoints. However, moral subjectivists argue that people’s moral growth happens when they reevaluate their beliefs, experiences, and moral standards. Rather than seeing moral progress as a reference to immutable moral principles, they may see it as the result of introspection.
Relational Relativism alleges that if morality is wholly context-dependent, then the objection of moral growth calls into question how moral development within particular relationships or social situations can be understood. Critics contend that when moral advancement entails modifications to social dynamics or power structures, relational Relativism may find it difficult to account for it. However, relational relativism proponents may argue that changing social dynamics and power structures are responsible for moral evolution in relationships and social environments. They may argue that rather than depending only on objective moral norms, moral advancement results from changing relational circumstances.
In the Moral Disagreement Reluctance on Cultural Relativism, the objection of moral disagreement challenges cultural Relativism by emphasizing that it becomes difficult to explain why moral disagreements between cultures persist and are irreconcilable if morality is wholly dependent on culture. However, this criticism implies that cultural Relativism finds it challenging to explain the existence of moral disagreement. Cultural relativists can argue that moral disagreement can still occur within a relativistic framework because every culture is distinct regarding experiences, values, and social settings. More so, some may argue that moral variation is acknowledged by cultural Relativism, which does not necessitate the existence of a single, objective moral truth.
Concerning Individual Relativism, the moral disagreement objection queries how moral subjectivism can account for moral discussions and conflicts between persons if moral convictions are wholly subjective. In addition, it implies that the persistence of moral conflicts may be difficult for moral subjectivism to explain. In response, moral subjectivists might emphasize that disagreements stem from individual variations in beliefs, values, and life experiences. Therefore, moral subjectivism does not need objective moral facts to recognize the presence of different moral views.
In relational Relativism, the moral disagreement objection questions relational Relativism by posing how it accounts for moral conflicts that emerge in particular social situations or relationships. However, relational Relativism’s detractors contend that it may not adequately explain how people with similar circumstances might arrive at contradictory moral conclusions. Relational relativism proponents may argue that the intricate interaction of social dynamics and power structures is to blame for moral disputes arising in relationships or social settings. Therefore, relational Relativism recognizes that moral judgments might differ because of individual interactions and views, even within the same environment.
The Moral Permissibility Objection, a moral permissibility issue, casts doubt on cultural Relativism by contesting its capacity to provide a compelling justification for denouncing morally repugnant behaviors like child abuse or genocide. For instance, critics contend that if some crimes are acceptable in a particular cultural context, cultural Relativism may find it difficult to condemn them as always immoral. Cultural relativists can argue that rather than depending on objective moral facts, moral agreement across cultures and shared human values leads to the condemnation of severe moral wrongs. Hence, they may claim that moral intuitions that have emerged universally throughout cultures have led to the widespread condemnation of certain conduct.
Concerning Individual Relativism, this criticism of moral subjectivism asks whether it can provide a convincing justification for denouncing universally reprehensible behaviors. More so, it is challenging to develop a universal moral condemnation of activities such as child abuse or genocide when moral ideas are wholly subjective. Moral subjectivists might argue that since certain behaviors go against widely accepted human ideals and moral intuitions that have evolved among humans, they are inherently evil. Therefore, they can argue that moral subjectivism acknowledges subjectivity in certain aspects of morality but acknowledges shared moral norms.
Relating to Relational Relativism, the objection of moral permissibility calls into doubt relational Relativism’s capacity to provide a definitive framework for denouncing severe moral wrongs within particular social settings or relationships. However, critics say relational Relativism could find it difficult to condemn such behaviors if they make sense within a specific relational context. Relational relativism proponents might counter that common moral principles and changing social dynamics nevertheless allow for the condemnation of severe moral wrongs in relationships or social circumstances. In addition, they can claim that even in the face of contextual diversity, relational Relativism recognizes the existence of universal moral standards. Generally, every argument against Relativism brings up issues unique to the particular kind under consideration.
Difference Between Individual and Cultural Relativism
Principal disparities between individual and cultural Relativism exist in the scope, nature of morality, and moral truth. Individual Relativism and cultural Relativism vary primarily in their scope. While cultural Relativism examines the relativity of moral standards and values across whole societies, individual Relativism concentrates on the subjectivity of moral judgments at the level of individual views (Cook, 2023). However, according to individual Relativism, morality derives from individuals’ subjective experiences and opinions. In contrast, according to cultural Relativism, morality is influenced by the customs and norms of a group of people. While cultural Relativism contends that moral principles are contextually conditioned and differ throughout cultures, individual Relativism maintains that moral principles are wholly subjective and vary from person to person (Cook, 2023). Generally, cultural Relativism emphasizes the variety of moral standards and values across other civilizations, while individual Relativism stresses the subjectivity of morality at the individual level.
Examples of Individual and Cultural Relativism
The following are examples of cultural Relativism as well as individual Relativism.
Examples of Individual Relativism in Moral Subjectivism: Imagine two friends, Sarah and Mike, discussing the morality of lying. Sarah firmly believes that lying is morally wrong in any circumstance; hence, her moral judgment is based on her belief that integrity is a fundamental virtue. However, Mike believes that there are situations in which lying is ethically permissible, and he believes that there are instances in which lying is appropriate, such as when it is done to protect someone’s feelings or prevent harming them. Moreover, Mike grounds his moral assessment on his belief that honesty is not necessary for morality.
However, in this case, Sarah and Mike’s views on lying are clear examples of moral subjectivism, often called individual Relativism. They make moral decisions based only on their ideas, feelings, and beliefs; no external standard can definitively determine if lying is morally right or wrong. Therefore, each person has a subjective perspective molded by their values and experiences.
Example of Cultural Relativism
Let us examine a cultural example from any region where eating insects is common. People of Culture A have traditionally eaten insects as part of their diet. They consider it a vital component of their culture and a healthful, sustainable food supply. In this community, eating insects is considered morally acceptable and is even celebrated on certain occasions. However, eating insects is not encouraged in Culture B since it goes against their cultural values and conventions. For instance, they believe insects are dirty and inappropriate to consume; thus, eating insects is considered unethical in this civilization.
In this case, cultural Relativism is at play; therefore, the two cultures have divergent opinions regarding the ethics of eating insects; hence, what is morally acceptable or immoral depends on a culture’s standards and beliefs. Cultural Relativism emphasizes how crucial it is to acknowledge and tolerate differences in moral opinions that deviate from one’s cultural standards. From one’s point of view, morality may be seen as subjective or culturally relative.
References
Baghramian, M., & Coliva, A. (2019). Relativism. Routledge.
Cook, J. (2023). Cultural Relativism is an ethnocentric notion. In The Philosophy of Society (pp. 289–315). Routledge.
Green, M. (2019). Moral Relativism and majority rule. Metaphilosophy, 50(3), 361–376.
write