This paper examines the philosophical debate between moral realism and moral relativism, challenging the assumption that the two positions are mutually exclusive. Moral realism holds that objective moral facts exist independent of cultural or individual interpretation, while moral relativism contends that moral judgments are true only relative to a particular cultural or historical standpoint. Drawing on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the paper illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective through concrete examples, including the morality of killing in self-defense and cross-cultural practices. The paper concludes that both frameworks carry internal tensions but need not be treated as strict either-or alternatives.
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis: it defines two competing positions, applies each to the same illustrative scenario, then evaluates the logical difficulties of both. This technique — define, apply, critique — is a reliable structure for any paper contrasting theoretical frameworks.
The paper opens by questioning the either-or framing of the debate, then dedicates a section to the moral realist position and its core claim about objective moral facts. A subsequent section raises epistemological objections to realism. The paper then pivots to moral relativism, explains its cultural-standpoint thesis with cross-cultural examples, and identifies its slippery-slope problem. A brief concluding section argues that the two positions need not be mutually exclusive, offering a moderate synthesis.
Philosophers have long debated the merits and existence of moral realism and moral relativism. Generally, the argument is framed as an either-or proposition, where only one position can be true. This is not necessarily the case, however, when one takes the time to explore what is actually meant by each term (Streitfeld). In essence, moral realism represents an objective view of morality while moral relativism represents a subjective one (Streitfeld).
Moral realism holds that any given action is either right or wrong (Kim). A moral realist would further argue that there are never extenuating circumstances that could change whether something is right or wrong (Kim). In other words, there are moral facts that govern all people, and regardless of the social or cultural setting, those facts can never waver (Kim). They cannot waver because they are facts, not subjective viewpoints (Kim).
This position is interesting to contemplate through a concrete example. A moral realist would contend that if an individual encountered a situation in which someone — say, the individual's own child — was being held captive and tortured by a serial killer, and that individual had both the means and the opportunity to save the child by killing the serial killer, that act of killing would still be morally wrong. Killing is killing, and it is never morally right (Kim).
A moral realist would argue that the wrongness of killing is a moral fact that holds true for all individuals (Kim). At the same time, it can also be a fact that a given person is a good person (Kim). According to Kim, this distinction characterizes 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 central difficulty with the moral realist position is its claim that morality is objective (Kim). If morality is truly objective, then why is it necessary to make subjective judgments about moral questions at all? How can one 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)? As Kim observes, "If moral objectivity is to be found within us, then it is not the same objectivity with which we began." The underlying idea is that, in order to be genuinely objective, a fact must exist independently of human interpretation — it cannot require a human mind to recognize 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 contend that this action is the morally right one. Thus, morality is not rigid; it may shift from wrong to right under varying circumstances and 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). This is so, a moral relativist would explain, because morality is understood differently across different societies and cultures (Westacott). A notable example is that in some cultures it is a rite of passage to circumcise a young male child in a ceremony involving the consumption of the foreskin. Within that society, the act is considered morally correct; in other societies, however, it would be regarded as reprehensible. Hence, moral relativism is often linked with the thesis "that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values" (Westacott).
Additionally, moral relativists deny "that there are universal moral values shared by every human society" (Westacott). Most importantly, a moral relativist would claim that ethnocentricity is itself wrong, and that one should not make moral judgments about the customs and beliefs of other cultures simply because they differ from one's own (Westacott).
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.