Moral relativism: philosophical foundations and implications

Relativism

Moral relativism seems as polarizing as any individual moral belief, with objectivists insisting that some acts are immoral under all circumstances and relativists pointing to the intrinsic moral value of tolerance. In "Folk Moral Relativism," Sarkissian et al. (2011) offers a more nuanced perspective somewhere between the two poles of absolute relativism and objectivism. To help clarify the differences between relativists and objectivists, Sarkissian et al. (2011) present a series of experiments highlighting the psychological tendencies toward either relativism or objectivism. As prior research illustrates, people do tend to be rather objectivist when it comes to making judgments about people from their own social and cultural milieu. Thus, an American person would claim that it is always wrong to steal candy from a baby in the United States. Sarkissian et al. (2011) went beyond the boundaries of prior research to show that people also tend to think in increasingly relativist terms when asked to make the same judgments of others: people from different cultural, ethnic, or national backgrounds. Using the same example, one person can simultaneously believe that stealing candy from a baby is wrong for Americans living in the United States, but that stealing candy from babies might be considered some sort of honor or custom in another country or another planet. While the research methods Sarkissian et al. (2011) use are as problematic as those of his forebears in psychological research on the topic of moral development, the study is nevertheless insightful.

Cultivating objectivist beliefs and only applying those moral objectives to one's own culture serves distinct social and political goals. For one, many moral codes are enshrined in the laws of the state. With law serving as an objective benchmark of morality, the person naturally presumes that behaviors can be labeled deviant in one country but not another. Holding everyone in the same country to the same moral standard makes for a relatively harmonious society. Moral objectivism creates the illusion of equality, by suggesting that a person may think or do as he or she pleases, but never has the right to infringe on the rights of others. If relativism were injected into the equation, legal conundrums would arise, and chaos might ensue. It would not be possible to justify holding two people to different moral standards. The only exception would be the increased tolerance people have toward those considered morally underdeveloped, such as children. Children who behave in ways deemed deviant are punished by their parents, but not sanctioned as if they were adults. Maintaining moral objectivity in a pluralistic society like the United States is also convenient, because there is a more absolute or definable ceiling on tolerance. Some behaviors deemed odd are condoned because they are not immoral; whereas other behaviors fall under the rubric of being immoral and are punishable regardless of whether they are considered "customs" in another society. For example, practitioners of Santeria are not permitted to kill animals as ritual sacrifice because the behavior is deemed immoral in the United States. The prevailing mentality is that Santeria itself is fine, as long as no animals or people are being harmed. It is also possible to be tolerant of difference without condoning an act. In other words, it is possible to tolerate those whose moral compass is different from one's own, while still maintaining an objectivist moral value system (Gowans, 2008).

Developing tolerance and respect for cultural diversity also serves a distinct social and political goal. The world has become linked, and contact with other people is inevitable. Rather than approach diversity with fear and mistrust, tolerance promotes harmony and peace. It therefore makes sense that people would want to practice some form of moral relativism with the "others" they encounter. As wonderful as moral relativism seems, there are several problems with the reasoning used to make relativist judgments. One problem is the lack of consistency with which moral relativism is applied. Using the same example with Santeria, the same individual would claim that killing the chicken is immoral in the United States but not in Cuba. Yet it would be illogical to hold both values true; the act of killing a chicken is the same whether it takes place in the United States or Cuba.