Relativism, Moral

Definitional Issues

Moral relativism is a theory that can be applied to individuals, to cultures, or to moral theories themselves. At the individual level, individual moral relativism would argue that whatever an individual thinks is right or wrong really is right or wrong for that individual. A popular expression of this view is, “What's right for me is right for me and what's right for you is right for you.” In philosophical discussions of ethical theory, this view is either identical with or closely allied to the doctrine of ethical subjectivism. Since most philosophers think that ethical subjectivism results in the very denial of the possibility of ethics as the term is normally understood, it will not be discussed further here. At the level of moral theory itself, moral relativism would argue that there is no ethical theory that is really objective. An ethical theory is objective when there are independent reasons that provide for its truth of adequacy. The key here is justification by reason rather than authority, be it personal charisma or cultural norm. Moral relativism at this level is an example of metaethical moral relativism since it denies the possibility of this form of rational justification. One needs to ask whether metaethical moral relativism is a moral theory (it seems that it is) and, thus, whether it is put forth as an objective moral claim. If so, it seems that metaethical moral relativism would contradict itself. If it is not put forward as an objective moral claim, why should any moralist pay attention to it?

Most moral philosophers discuss moral relativism at the level of cultures, and that is the focus of this discussion. At the cultural level, moral relativism is the normative ethical theory that says that what is really right or wrong is what the culture says is right or wrong. In other words, it is culture that determines the criteria for right and wrong. Thus, if the culture of Sweden has a norm that accepts the moral permissibility of abortion, then abortion really is morally justified in Sweden. If Ireland has a norm that abortion is wrong, then abortion really is wrong in Ireland, and it cannot be morally justified. In matters of right and wrong, culture is the ultimate judge but it is only the judge for that culture.

Moral relativism must be distinguished from cultural relativism, with which it is sometimes confused. Moral relativism is a normative ethical theory that is meant to instruct as to what is really right or wrong. Cultural relativism is a descriptive thesis that says that moral practices differ among cultures. Cultural relativism is a factual claim about the world.

Reasons for Adopting Moral Relativism

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, American politics was dominated by the doctrine of manifest destiny—namely, that America's destiny was to spread democracy, capitalism, and Christianity throughout the world. At about the same time, the discipline of anthropology was born. Early anthropologists included William Graham Sumner, Ruth Benedict, and Margaret Mead. These pioneers and others discovered a great variety of customs regarding morality throughout the world. What was considered moral in one place was almost always considered amoral or immoral in another. As an antidote to the cultural imperialism of manifest destiny, these social scientists and others urged a greater toleration of the moral customs of others. Thus, one reason for adopting moral relativism, some would argue, is that it encourages a healthy toleration of diverse moral customs—a toleration that is pragmatically necessary in a pluralistic world and cosmopolitan business environment.

...