Moral Relativism - Essay Example

Relativism is the concept that all opinions or points of view are equally valid and are subject to one’s perception and consideration. Moral relativism is a type of relativism that majors mainly on moral ethics. It is a philosophical view that nullifies the existence of an absolute law that applies to everyone at all times and everywhere. It asserts that moral statements “vary from one person to another, is equally valid, and no one’s thought on being right and wrong is better than any other.” Moral relativism can be narrowed down to a personal level through other types of relativistic thinking, for instance, cultural relativism or subjectivism (Schumacher).

Cultural relativism is defined as a principle by which an individual’s beliefs and activities are only subject to judgment based on that particular individual’s culture. In fact, it holds the view that no culture is superior to any other culture with respect to morality standards, politics, law, and any other considerable aspects unique to individual cultures. Cultural relativism and moral relativism share a lot of similarities and it is widely believed that after World War II, following the popularization of the principle of cultural relativism, the term “cultural relativism” was commonly mistakenly used to mean “moral relativism”.

Moral relativism undermines the rule of law. The formation of laws is based on a fixed standard stand on a moral issue that has to be adhered to; otherwise one may have to face consequences. Moral relativism on the hand is based on the belief of the non-existence of absolute morals. Rights and wrongs are purely dependent on a person’s preferences and opinions on the matter. Take for example rape, a person accused of rape might claim innocence and absolve from any wrongdoing on the basis of moral relativism. The rapist might argue that rape is right within his personal beliefs and culture. However brutal this sounds, a moral relativist finds it logical. Rape in this case cannot be seen as wrong, and probably the strongest opinion that can be made out of it is “I don’t like it.” This contradiction of the law may result in a chaotic situation where everyone does anything anywhere and at any time as long it suits their preferences (Schumacher).

Christians and other religions alike believe that there exists a supreme being who is the standard authority for morals by which they abide. Rights and wrongs are, therefore, based on God’s moral law. For moral relativists, God is nonexistent. Their disregard for a supreme being as the standard authority for morals can be argued to have an inevitable hand in the rise of those individuals who seek power in a bid to set their own moral framework on other people; a tendency normally associated with dictatorship (Schumacher).

In conclusion, moral relativism is hard to practically implement because logically in every two statements there is always one that is more correct. Well, moral reservists deny that.