ETHICAL RELATIVISM

WHAT IS ETHICAL RELATIVISM?

ETHICAL RELATIVISM IS A THEORY THAT HOLDS THAT MORALITY IS RELATIVE TO
THE NORMS OF ONE’S CULTURE. THAT IS, WHETHER AN ACTION IS RIGHT OR
WRONG DEPENDS ON THE MORAL NORMS OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH IT IS
PRACTICED. THE SAME ACTION MAY BE MORALLY RIGHT IN ONE SOCIETY BUT BE
MORALLY WRONG IN ANOTHER.
 THERE ARE TWO MAIN FORMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM:

CULTURAL RELATIVISM: CULTURAL RELATIVISM ARGUES THAT WHAT IS CONSIDERED MORALLY RIGHT
OR WRONG IS DETERMINED BY THE CULTURAL CONTEXT IN WHICH IT OCCURS. IN OTHER WORDS, A
BEHAVIOR OR ACTION CAN BE DEEMED MORALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ONE CULTURE BUT MORALLY
UNACCEPTABLE IN ANOTHER. PROPONENTS OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD
NOT IMPOSE OUR MORAL STANDARDS ON OTHER CULTURES AND SHOULD STRIVE TO UNDERSTAND
AND RESPECT THEIR VALUES AND PRACTICES.
• INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM: INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM TAKES THE PERSPECTIVE THAT MORALITY IS A
MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL OPINION. ACCORDING TO THIS VIEW, WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT OR
WRONG IS A PRODUCT OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL BELIEFS, EMOTIONS, AND JUDGMENTS.
EACH PERSON HAS THEIR OWN MORAL CODE, AND THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD AGAINST
WHICH TO JUDGE THESE CODES.
 EXAMPLES OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM
1. DRESS CODES: WHAT IS CONSIDERED MODEST OR APPROPRIATE CLOTHING VARIES FROM ONE CULTURE TO ANOTHER. FOR EXAMPLE, IN
SOME WESTERN CULTURES, IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR MEN AND WOMEN TO WEAR REVEALING CLOTHING, WHILE IN MORE CONSERVATIVE
MIDDLE EASTERN CULTURES, MODESTY IS HIGHLY VALUED, AND BOTH MEN AND WOMEN MAY BE EXPECTED TO COVER THEIR BODIES
MORE.
2. CANNIBALISM: WHILE CANNIBALISM IS WIDELY CONSIDERED MORALLY ABHORRENT IN MANY CULTURES, THERE ARE HISTORICAL
EXAMPLES OF CULTURES THAT HAVE PRACTICED CANNIBALISM FOR VARIOUS REASONS, SUCH AS RITUALISTIC OR SURVIVAL PURPOSES.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MORAL EVALUATION OF THIS PRACTICE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CULTURAL
CONTEXT IN WHICH IT OCCURS.
3. ARRANGED MARRIAGES: IN SOME CULTURES, ARRANGED MARRIAGES ARE THE NORM, WHERE FAMILIES PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN
SELECTING A SPOUSE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL. WHILE THIS MIGHT BE SEEN AS RESTRICTIVE OR OBJECTIONABLE IN SOME WESTERN CULTURES,
IT IS A CULTURALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.
4. POLYGAMY: POLYGAMY, THE PRACTICE OF HAVING MULTIPLE SPOUSES, IS CONSIDERED IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL IN MANY WESTERN
CULTURES. HOWEVER, IT IS A CULTURALLY ACCEPTED AND PRACTICED NORM IN SOME AFRICAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN SOCIETIES.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE MORAL JUDGMENT OF POLYGAMY SHOULD BE VIEWED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
THESE CULTURES.
5. DIFFERING VIEWS ON HOMOSEXUALITY: ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY VARY WIDELY ACROSS CULTURES. IN SOME WESTERN
COUNTRIES, THERE IS GROWING ACCEPTANCE AND LEGAL RECOGNITION OF LGBTQ+ RIGHTS, WHILE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD,
HOMOSEXUALITY IS STRONGLY STIGMATIZED AND MAY EVEN BE ILLEGAL
 EXAMPLES OF INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM
1. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: SOME PEOPLE MAY BE MORALLY OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY, VIEWING IT AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE. OTHERS MAY
SUPPORT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, BELIEVING THAT IT IS A JUST RESPONSE TO HEINOUS CRIMES. INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THESE
BELIEFS ARE SUBJECTIVE AND BASED ON PERSONAL VALUES.

2. ABORTION: THE MORAL STANCE ON ABORTION VARIES WIDELY AMONG INDIVIDUALS. SOME MAY BELIEVE THAT A WOMAN HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT HER BODY AND REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES, WHILE OTHERS MAY HOLD THE BELIEF THAT ABORTION IS MORALLY WRONG AND CONSTITUTES THE
TAKING OF A HUMAN LIFE. THESE POSITIONS ARE SHAPED BY INDIVIDUAL MORAL PERSPECTIVES.

3. DRUG USE: SOME INDIVIDUALS MAY SEE RECREATIONAL DRUG USE AS A PERSONAL CHOICE THAT DOES NOT HARM OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, VIEW IT AS
MORALLY ACCEPTABLE. OTHERS MAY BELIEVE THAT DRUG USE IS MORALLY WRONG AND DESTRUCTIVE. INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM ALLOWS FOR THESE DIFFERING
VIEWPOINTS.

4. DIETARY CHOICES: ONE INDIVIDUAL MAY CHOOSE TO FOLLOW A VEGAN DIET FOR ETHICAL REASONS, BELIEVING THAT IT IS WRONG TO HARM OR EXPLOIT
ANIMALS FOR FOOD. ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE NO MORAL QUALMS ABOUT CONSUMING MEAT AND MAY NOT SEE ANY ETHICAL ISSUE WITH DOING SO.
BOTH INDIVIDUALS ARE MAKING DIETARY CHOICES BASED ON THEIR PERSONAL MORAL BELIEFS.

5. HONESTY: THE MORAL EVALUATION OF HONESTY CAN ALSO BE RELATIVE. WHILE ONE PERSON MAY BELIEVE THAT HONESTY IS AN ABSOLUTE MORAL DUTY,
ANOTHER MAY THINK THAT IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO TELL WHITE LIES OR WITHHOLD INFORMATION IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THESE VIEWS ARE SHAPED BY
INDIVIDUAL MORAL JUDGMENTS.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: INDIVIDUALS' PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY CAN VARY WIDELY. SOME MAY PRIORITIZE ECOLOGICAL
CONSERVATION AND SEE IT AS A MORAL DUTY TO REDUCE THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT, WHILE OTHERS MAY NOT PLACE THE SAME LEVEL OF MORAL IMPORTANCE
ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

7. CHARITABLE GIVING: THE DECISION TO DONATE TO CHARITABLE CAUSES IS OFTEN INFLUENCED BY INDIVIDUAL MORAL VALUES. SOME PEOPLE MAY BELIEVE THAT
THEY HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO HELP THOSE IN NEED AND CONTRIBUTE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR INCOME TO CHARITY, WHILE OTHERS MAY NOT
FEEL THE SAME MORAL IMPERATIVE.
WHO REJECTS ?? ETHICAL RELATIVISM
WHILE THERE ARE MANY WHO SUPPORT ETHICAL RELATIVISM, MANY ETHICISTS, PHILOSOPHERS,
AND ACADEMICS DISAGREE WITH IT. THOSE WHO OPPOSE ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND SOME OF
THEIR CRITICISMS INCLUDE:
• ETHICAL ABSOLUTISTS: THESE INDIVIDUALS CONTEND THAT THERE EXIST OBJECTIVE, UNIVERSAL
MORAL STANDARDS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO ALL INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES. THEY EMPHASIZE
THE PRESENCE OF MORAL TRUTHS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF INDIVIDUAL OR CULTURE
VARIATION AND REJECT THE NOTION THAT MORALITY IS PURELY RELATIVE.
• MORAL REALISTS: THOSE WHO REJECT ETHICAL RELATIVISM ARE CATEGORISED AS MORAL
REALISTS. THEY HOLD THAT MORAL STATEMENTS CAN BE TRUE OR UNTRUE REGARDLESS OF AN
INDIVIDUAL'S OR A SOCIETY'S BELIEFS, AND THAT THERE EXIST OBJECTIVE MORAL FACTS. THEY
CONTEND THAT MORAL CLAIMS MAY BE INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED, MUCH LIKE CLAIMS MADE
IN SCIENCE OR MATHS.
Human Rights Advocates: Because ethical relativism is thought to be incompatible with
the idea of universal human rights, proponents of human rights frequently reject it. Most
people believe that human rights are inalienable and should be extended to everyone,
regardless of cultural background. Ethical relativism could be considered as a threat to
the idea of universal human rights because it permits cultural differences in morality.
Feminist Ethicists: According to certain feminist ethicists, gender-based violence and other
harmful practises against women can be justified or tolerated through the application of
ethical relativism. They stress the significance of universal values in combating
inequalities based on gender.

Pragmatists: According to pragmatic ethicists and philosophers, moral relativism does not
offer a useful framework for moral judgement calls or the resolution of moral
conundrums. They contend that it can be difficult to settle moral disputes and advance
ethics in the absence of certain universally accepted moral standards.
Cultural Critics/Humanitarians: Scholars and observers who worry about the possible
effects of relativism, such as cultural insensitivity, moral nihilism, or the incapacity to
confront ethically repugnant practises un certain cultures, are also opponents of ethical
relativism.
THE PEOPLE WHO REJECTS THIS THEORY HAVE THEIR OWN UNIVERSAL MORAL STANDARDS.
THEY BELIEVE THAT MORAL PRACTICES OF SOCIETIES MAY DIFFER, THE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL
PRACTICES OF SOCIETIES MAY DIFFER, THE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THESE
PRACTICES DONOT.
E.G IN SOME SOCIETIES KILLING ONE’S PARENTS AFTER CERTAIN AGE WAS COMMON PRACTICE
STEMMING FROM THE BELIEF THAT THEY ARE DONE WITH THE SUFFERINGS AND NOW THEY ARE AT
BETTER PLACE.
WHILE SUCH A PRACTICE WOULD BE CONDEMNED IN OUR SOCIETY. BECAUSE WE BELIEVE ON THE
DUTY TO CARE FOR PARENTS.
IT WOULD BE MORALLY WRONG FOR ‘SUSAN’ TO HAVE AN ABORTION IF SUSAN BELIEVED THAT
ABORTION IS ALWAYS MORALLY WRONG. BUT IT DIFFERS IF THEIR COMES THE PERSONAL CHOICE.
• IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE REJECTION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM DOES NOT MEAN THAT
CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY SHOULD BE IGNORED. MANY CRITICS OF ETHICAL
RELATIVISM BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECT.
HOWEVER, THEY ARGUE THAT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH SOME UNIVERSAL ETHICAL
PRINCIPLES THAT CAN GUIDE MORAL DISCOURSE AND BEHAVIOR, EVEN IN A DIVERSE WORLD.
 CONCLUSION
• ETHICAL RELATIVISM IS A COMPLEX AND CONTROVERSIAL MORAL THEORY THAT POSITS THAT MORALITY IS
SUBJECTIVE AND VARIES FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL OR CULTURE TO ANOTHER. IT HAS BOTH PROPONENTS
AND CRITICS, AND REACHING A CONCLUSION ABOUT ITS VALIDITY DEPENDS ON ONE'S PERSPECTIVE AND
THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS APPLIED. HERE ARE SOME KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN
CONCLUDING ABOUT ETHICAL RELATIVISM:
• PROS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM:
1. CULTURAL SENSITIVITY: ETHICAL RELATIVISM ENCOURAGES AN OPEN-MINDED AND CULTURALLY
SENSITIVE APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECTING DIVERSE MORAL BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
AROUND THE WORLD.
2. PROMOTION OF TOLERANCE: IT CAN PROMOTE TOLERANCE AND REDUCE ETHNOCENTRISM, AS IT
DISCOURAGES THE IMPOSITION OF ONE CULTURE'S MORAL VALUES ON OTHERS.
3. REFLECTS REAL-WORLD DIVERSITY: ETHICAL RELATIVISM ACKNOWLEDGES THE DIVERSITY OF MORAL
VALUES AND BELIEFS THAT EXIST IN THE WORLD, WHICH REFLECTS THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN
SOCIETIES.
 CONS OF E.R
1. MORAL SKEPTICISM: CRITICS ARGUE THAT ETHICAL RELATIVISM CAN LEAD TO MORAL SKEPTICISM, AS IT SUGGESTS THAT THERE
ARE NO OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARDS AGAINST WHICH TO JUDGE ACTIONS OR BELIEFS. THIS CAN MAKE IT CHALLENGING TO
ADDRESS MORAL DISAGREEMENTS OR CONDEMN MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE ACTIONS.
2. DIFFICULTY IN MORAL PROGRESS: SOME ARGUE THAT ETHICAL RELATIVISM MAY HINDER MORAL PROGRESS BY ALLOWING
PRACTICES AND BELIEFS THAT ARE MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE TO PERSIST WITHOUT CHALLENGE OR CRITIQUE.
3. INCOMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS: THE IDEA THAT MORALITY CAN VARY GREATLY BETWEEN CULTURES CAN CONFLICT
WITH THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, WHICH ASSUMES THAT CERTAIN RIGHTS ARE INHERENT AND INALIENABLE
TO ALL INDIVIDUALS.
4. LACK OF A MORAL COMPASS: ETHICAL RELATIVISM MAY LEAVE INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES WITHOUT A CLEAR MORAL
COMPASS, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE ETHICAL DECISIONS OR PROVIDE A BASIS FOR MORAL GUIDANCE.
• IN CONCLUSION, ETHICAL RELATIVISM IS A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE THAT CHALLENGES THE NOTION OF UNIVERSAL AND
OBJECTIVE MORALITY. ITS PROPONENTS ARGUE THAT IT PROMOTES CULTURAL SENSITIVITY AND RESPECT FOR DIVERSE MORAL
BELIEFS, WHILE ITS CRITICS CONTEND THAT IT CAN LEAD TO MORAL SKEPTICISM, HINDER MORAL PROGRESS, AND PRESENT
CHALLENGES IN ADDRESSING ISSUES SUCH AS HUMAN RIGHTS. THE EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM OFTEN DEPENDS ON
ONE'S PERSONAL ETHICAL FRAMEWORK AND THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS BEING CONSIDERED. MANY INDIVIDUALS
AND SCHOLARS SEEK TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN RECOGNIZING CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND MAINTAINING CERTAIN
UNIVERSAL MORAL PRINCIPLES.
 HOME WORK

• "THINK ABOUT A SITUATION IN YOUR DAILY LIFE WHERE YOU'VE ENCOUNTERED A MORAL
DILEMMA OR DISAGREEMENT WITH SOMEONE ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG. DESCRIBE
THE SITUATION, THE CONFLICTING MORAL PERSPECTIVES INVOLVED, AND THE CULTURAL OR
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THESE PERSPECTIVES. THEN, ANALYZE THE SITUATION
THROUGH THE LENS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM. CONSIDER WHETHER ETHICAL RELATIVISM
PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO WHY THERE WAS A MORAL DIFFERENCE IN THIS SITUATION AND HOW
IT MIGHT GUIDE YOU IN RESOLVING SUCH CONFLICTS. FINALLY, DISCUSS WHETHER YOU AGREE
WITH THE IDEA OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM AS A WAY TO APPROACH MORAL DISAGREEMENTS IN
DAILY LIFE, PROVIDING REASONS FOR YOUR POSITION."