Moral Relativism - Essay Example

Moral relativism Moral relativism is a philosophical theory that morality, principles, ethics are relative which are culturally dependent as well count on an individual’s choice. This morality is not absolute, it does not hold for all people at any place and it depends on time and situation too. Moral relativism allows people to give their point of view in accordance what is right and wrong for an individual. It does not limits a person rather offers to make his/her own decision. A professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University, Simon Blackburn describes his own opinion regarding moral relativism "Different opinions, no one authority, and as many 'truths' as there are people or societies or cultures advancing different ways of doing things," According to moral relativism nothing is bad or good but it depends on the situation a person is going through and how he deals with it, it is an obvious truth which is irrefutable, but a controversy here arises as other sees it shattering the moral foundation.

Moral relativism is more comprehensible when compared with moral absolutism. Absolutism is also a philosophical theory which states that morality is dependent on universal principles, which are natural laws and conscience and the power of doctrine principle is vested in one authority. Muslims and Christians believe in one God, his power is bestowed upon his people; he is the ultimate authority and ultimate source of common morality. But moral relativism on the contrary is based on the absolute standards and principle.

Factors such as situation, culture, individual’s thoughts and point of view are variable and influence moral relativism. A dictionary definition explains this theory of moral relativism that is no objective standards. Moral relativism makes no sense of understanding what is right and wrong for an act, they are not any standards or values placed; it depends on the individual’s choice so there is no criterion for which it is fought for. In contrast to moral relativism, there is only truth for absolutism With the advancement, modern societies are in the favor and are steadily accepting this philosophy.

They agree to all the pros and cons of this theory and consented on a single note that absolute standards are not right and wrong rather it depends and is determined by every individual. These standards set up by any society are variable and is influenced by the situation, circumstances or a person. Moral relativism remarks that life is eventually without any reason or meaning. Approximately 75% of the professors working in the west include in their teachings that nothing is right or wrong. But they arise the question of good and creating an unpleasant atmosphere around and is relative to individual values, ethics, principles.

Arguments for Moral Relativism Supporters of moral relativism allude to a variety of truths Moral beliefs and view point of every society differs from one another. argument here arises, who favors moral relativism believe in the fact that culture, way of life, thinking, values influence individual to decide what is right and what is wrong so morality is basically a mere product of view point which moral relativism accounts. Moral disagreement The disagreement argument states that information and details of moral dissimilarity involves moral and ethical relativism.

When we investigate the different cultures of the world we find that different societies have different norms and traditions as well as different moral code of conduct. If instead of different moral codes there was to be a single moral code than we would expect not to find this. In act we would find different people accepting the concept of morality and a universal agreement on issues relating to morality. Hence it can be said that morality means personal and individual opinion and that there is no single true morality.

Moral absolutism applies in certain aspects and in certain circumstances where moral relativism does not implies. Flexibility in this argument arises in the exceptions to moral standards, circumstances. Examples such as stealing, lying and acts more inferior to this are sometimes justified. The argument here concludes people acts is different situations and circumstance are sometimes justified. Killing a person in defense or stealing in order to feed a family which is starving, they are exceptional and acceptable but moral rules that don’t kill or don’t steal are exceptional.

So absolute moral standards are too simple to understand is a misconception and morality is relative to these factors. Another argument, the argument of tolerance, states clearly that we have to be patient with the opinion of others, irrespective of the fact that we do not agree with them, especially with those who have a different societal or cultural background. Similarly we should not consider that our culture, in any way, is better morally than any other culture. Therefore we have to be more moral and ethical relativists.

Reference Moral Relativism. 2011. Lukes, Steven Moral relativism and moral objectivity. 1996. Harman, Gilbert. Jarvis Thomson, Judith. A refutation of moral relativism: interviews with an absolutist. 1999. Kreeft, Peter.