Moral relativism and the debate over absolute versus culturally determined ethics

Moral Relativism is a point-of-view, which holds that the truth or justification of moral judgments, is not absolute but determined by society or its culture (Gowan 2004). It flourished in ancient times when moral diversity was the prevailing and accepted thought. It grew from moral skepticism, which holds that there is no moral knowledge (Gowan).

The argument is whether moral relativism is correct or not. One side maintains that it is as true and valid as Einstein's law of motion, which assumes a specific but individual framework in which it operates (Harman 1996). The other side recognizes that various societies have differing beliefs and practices at different times and ages (Pojnam and Thomson eds 2007). But it contends that moral relativism does not follow from this diversity (Pojnam and Thomson eds).

The "Yes" Side

Throughout history, different people at different times and places have held divergent, sometimes opposing, moral views, even within the same society (Harman 1996). The ancient Greeks once strongly believed, for instance, that their god Zeus produced thunder. That science changed that strong belief. Today's Greek people will ascribe thunder to natural causes and conditions. This shows that what a particular society or individual strongly believes in or observes can and does change when new and convincing evidence demands that change. Another example is the origin and nature of black holes, which have not yet been scientifically explained. The dictates of morality appear to proceed from convention or understanding among people of a particular era and place. The fact is that people within that particular era and place themselves form different shades of understanding even about a specific matter. There appears to be no strict, basic or generalized moral demands or requirements for differences in understanding or view about something. Because people's beliefs are relative, it follows that their behavioral norms, described as ethics, are also relative. Thus it is correct to say that morality and ethics, which are determined or perceived individually and subjectively, are also individual and subjective rather than absolute (Harman).

Summarizing, this side advances three arguments. The first is that moral rightness and wrongness are not absolute or pre-existing (Harman 1996). They evolve from individual and cultural understanding and assumptions of things. There are, thus, no universal absolute moral standards held by and applicable to all societies and at all times. The second is that the determination of the rightness or wrongness of a given behavior or act depends on, is relative to, and determined by the society to which the involved individuals belong. People belonging to previous or later societies cannot judge for them. The third is the conclusion, which proceeds from these arguments. It states that, therefore, no universal absolute or objective moral standards exist. Only moral relativism does and is, therefore, correct and moral absolutism is incorrect. (Harman).

To emphasize and elucidate, moral relativism states that morality is changeable, subjective and thus relative to times that change and which cannot be retrieved (Pojman and Thomson 2007). It also disputes that anything one subjectively thinks or feels is therefore intrinsically right or wrong, good or bad. Only thinking makes it so. And the rule changes according to the person whom it is applied (Pojman and Thomson).

Weaknesses

One weakness of moral relativism consists of the consequences of not having moral constraints (Kreeft 2003). Correct or good morality, if valid, should always have good consequences. Incorrect or bad morality should always have bad consequences. The fact is that all wrong or immoral acts and attitudes bring on "good" or pleasant feelings. Moral relativism has never produced people worthy of praise. It has never produced good societies. History proves that the societies founded by Moses and Confucius lasted longer than those by Mussolino and Mao Tse Tung and that moral societies endure (Kreeft).

Tradition is not on the side of moral relativism. Moral absolutism is, in fact, the traditional morality (Kreeft 2003). It may be commonly thought that tradition is for snobs, but these snobs are really few and a minority. The truth of the matter is that absolutism has remained the norm in history. For ages, these snobs have remained in the minority and have only managed to impose their elitist "relativist" attitude on popular opinion (Kreeft).

Moral experience is the simplest argument against the weakness of moral relativism (Kreeft 2003). From birth, a person goes through moral experience, which is always and plainly absolutistic. It is only later in his life that this is altered by sophistication. Right at the start, he knows what should or ought to be done and what is right or wrong. Everyone experiences moral obligation without being taught beforehand. Moral absolutism, therefore, is a basic human experience. An innate sense of moral obligation moves a person towards an end from above or within. It is clearly inherent but empirical at the same time (Kreeft).

Moral protest also provides strong evidence of the correctness of moral absolutism and a fundamental weakness of moral relativism (Kreeft 2003). Every person by nature feels moral protest when treated wrongly or unfairly. Spousal infidelity clearly illustrates that an offended spouse feels wrong treated. Relativism appears to be personal rather than philosophical and has more hypocrisy in it than hypothesis. There is contradiction between its theory and its practice (Kreeft).

The language people use actually underlies moral absolutism and not moral relativism (Kreeft 2003). People really argue and fight over what they inherently feel to be right or wrong. They praise, blame or command according to that inherent sense of right and wrong. This built-in sense is what renders their language meaningful and puts strength into them to fight for what is right and fight against what they inherently know to be wrong (Kreeft).

The greatest weakness of moral relativism is that it does not really refute any argument (Kreeft 2003). It is not rational. Rather, it is only the rationalization of a prior action, which it must justify. It veers away from the principle that passion must be evaluated by reason and controlled by the will. Moral relativism contradicts the virtue of self-control, on which lasting civilizations are founded. But romanticists, existentialists, Freudians and other thinkers who reject self-control have managed to convince a minority that moral absolutism limits happiness (Kreeft).

Opinion

Pojman and Thomson's position that moral relativism is incorrect is true and valid. Ancient beliefs were derived from what the people then knew and honestly believed as true. But when science and other sources of verified knowledge developed, people changed those views in order to live better. Harman and Thomson cannot appeal to cultural diversity, subjectivism and conventionalism as evidence to favor moral relativism. Cultures inherently seek the greatest amount of human happiness in this world and it is moral absolutism, not moral relativism, which genuinely teaches and safeguards happiness. A subjective view does not make right look wrong or wrong look right. A correct regard of the self puts a person in line with moral absolutism, not with moral relativism. And conventions strive for the highest good for the highest number of people. It is the very same object of moral absolutism from which moral relativism deviates.