This paper examines the relationship between ethics, culture, and individual moral experience through the lens of ethical relativism. Drawing on Fagothey (2000) and Becker and Becker (2002), the paper argues that while ethics are broadly shaped by cultural context, they are never entirely uniform even within a single culture. It contends that relativism functions well as a working theoretical framework precisely because it acknowledges the subjective, context-bound nature of moral judgment. The paper further challenges the possibility of universal ethical principles, concluding that the only consistent principle across all human cultures and individuals is that no single, binding moral code applies to everyone.
The paper demonstrates effective use of a reductio ad absurdum-style reasoning: it acknowledges that relativism might appear universal in scope, then systematically dismantles that appearance by showing that universality is incompatible with relativism's core logic. This technique of granting a point before qualifying it strengthens the argumentative arc without overstating the thesis.
The paper is organized into four thematic paragraphs, each advancing a distinct step in the argument: (1) the cultural basis of ethics with individual variation, (2) relativism as a functional framework for understanding moral difference, (3) the inherent incompatibility of relativism with true universalism, and (4) the conclusion that individual human experience forecloses any universal moral code. References to Fagothey (2000) and Becker and Becker (2002) are distributed throughout to anchor each claim.
Ethics are generally relative to a person's culture, but not so much to the individual, although there are exceptions. This comes about because people, even though they are clearly individuals, are also significantly affected by the culture of which they are a part (Becker & Becker, 2002). Cultures, however, are often very different, and many of the ethics that belong to a particular culture do not translate to another (Fagothey, 2000). This is often why people who attempt to conduct business globally encounter trouble or commit an unintentional faux pas — they do not recognize the differences between cultures, which can be quite pronounced (Fagothey, 2000).
Many of these cultural differences are insignificant, but those that deal with ethics and ethical behavior can become problematic for people who are interacting with other cultures for business or pleasure (Becker & Becker, 2002). Additionally, there are individuals within those cultures whose ethics will vary from the cultural norm, either by a little or sometimes by a great deal.
Because that is the case, it can be difficult to determine what a person considers ethically correct, and how that person will treat others based on both personal and cultural ethics (Fagothey, 2000). While much can be learned about a culture and its ethics, the outliers and the ongoing evolution of both people and culture will always be difficult to pin down. That is why moral relativism can work as a universal theory. It makes the most sense because it espouses the idea that points of view are subjective and relative, and do not carry value beyond that context (Fagothey, 2000).
The differences that people have in consideration and perception are vital to address where relativism is concerned (Fagothey, 2000). Whether something is relative to a specific situation or a person does not mean it is believed to be relative to anything or anyone else. This is the concept that relativism offers: it is not universal in the way in which it is applied.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.