Differences between moral realism and moral relativism

Moral Realism vs. Moral Relativism

Philosophers have argued the merits or existence of moral realism and moral relativism for some time. Generally, the argument is designed as an either or proposition, where only one argument can be true. This is not necessarily true when one takes the time to explore what is meant by moral realism vs. moral relativism (Streitfeld). Essentially, moral realism is an objective view while moral realism is a subjective view (Streitfeld)

Moral realism holds that a thing is either right or it is wrong (Kim). Further, a moral realist would aver that there are never extenuating circumstances that would change whether or not a something is right or wrong (Kim). In other words, there are moral facts which govern us all, and regardless of what the social or cultural setting is, that fact can never waiver (Kim). It cannot waiver because it is a fact, not a subjective viewpoint (Kim). This is interesting to contemplate. For example, the moral realist would contend that if an individual encountered a situation where someone (say the individual's child) was being held captive and being tortured by a serial killer, and that individual had the means and opportunity to save the child by killing the serial killer, that action (killing the serial killer) would be morally wrong. Killing is killing and it is never morally right (Kim)

A moral realist would argue that killing being morally wrong is a moral fact that holds true for all individuals (Kim). On the other hand, it can also be a fact that someone (John Doe) is a good person (Kim). According to Kim, this distinguishes moral realism as a study of "What is." Kim states that the first example "not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual's behavior."

The difficulty with the moral realists' position is that it claims that morality is objective Kim). If morality is objective, then why is it necessary to make subjective judgments regarding morality? How is one to define something as right or wrong without making a value statement (Kim)? If lying is always wrong, who determined this and on what basis (Kim)? "If moral objectivity is to be found within us, then it is not the same objectivity with which we began," (Kim). The notion here is that in order to be objective, a fact must exist outside of humans and not need a human to interpret it as a fact (Kim).

Moral relativists view morality quite differently. From the perspective of the moral relativist, killing the serial killer who is torturing and holding one's child captive would not be considered morally wrong. In fact, moral relativism would undoubtedly contend that this action is the morally right action. Thus, morality is not rigid and may change from wrong to right under varying circumstances, and it is therefore subjective (Kim).

Moreover, the moral relativist would argue that a moral judgment is only "true or false relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others" (Westacott). A moral realist would explain that this is so because morality is viewed differently in different societies and cultures (Westacott). A fine example is that in some cultures it is a right of passage to circumcise a young male child and then eat the foreskin. For this society it is the morally correct thing to do, however, eating a young man's foreskin would be considered reprehensible morally in other societies. Hence, moral relativism is often linked with the thesis "that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values" (Westacott). Additionally, moral realists deny "that there are universal moral values shared by every human society" (Westacott). Most importantly, moral realist would claim that ethnocentricity is wrong in and of itself, and that one should not make moral judgments about the customs and beliefs of other cultures simply because they are different (Weastacott).

Clearly, the moral relativist viewpoint can become a slippery slope. When speaking of morality is it correct to say that anything acceptable in a certain society is morally correct? Moral relativists do not contend that murdering a child is not morally wrong (Westacott). Yet, given the basis of their perspective, it should be morally right if that culture believes it is right (Westacott). There is an indisputable conundrum with this line of reasoning.

It is clear that there are argumentative problems with both perspectives. While the moral realist camp has difficulty explaining how something can be a fact without someone making a judgment call (thus making it a subjective fact), the moral relativists have their own interpretational difficulties. Not the least of which is the notion of tolerance (Westacott). If taken to its extreme, moral relativism would contend that any action is morally right as long as the action taker believes it to be so (Westacott).