Morality Relativism: The Concerns It Raises

Morality Relativism The Concerns It Raises

Morality relativism, also known as cultural relativism, asserts that moral principles are purely relative to specific cultures, societies, or contexts. According to this view, moral disagreements and differences are irreconcilable because moral truth varies across cultures. For example, practices such as infanticide and euthanasia among Inuit Eskimos demonstrate the belief that there are no universal moral truths applicable everywhere and at all times. Proponents argue that the only meaningful moral values are toleration and mutual respect for pluralistic values. This perspective emphasizes cultural diversity and the importance of understanding different moral standards without imposing external judgments.

On the other hand, moral absolutism posits that there are clear, universal moral truths that apply to all individuals and societies, regardless of context. This view maintains that certain moral principles—such as the wrongness of underage marriage or polygamy—are absolute and unchanging. For example, from an absolutist perspective, practices deemed immoral in one culture cannot be justified by cultural differences, even if they are accepted within that society. Hence, moral absolutism underscores the importance of objective moral standards that can guide human behavior universally.

The debate between these perspectives hinges upon human knowledge and the nature of moral progress. Unlike scientific theories, which are based on empirical data and are inherently fallible, ethics grapple with normative judgments that cannot be empirically proven. While scientific progress can be measured through improved understanding and technological advancements, moral progress remains more complex and less quantifiable. This raises questions about whether moral truths are absolute or subject to change, and whether ethical systems can evolve in ways that enhance human well-being and justice.

Extremist moral relativism, which claims that no one has the right to judge others’ cultural practices, leads to problematic implications. For instance, if cultural practices like those of the Afghan Taliban—such as bans on women's education and employment—are considered beyond critique, it becomes challenging to advocate for human rights universally. Conversely, this form of relativism can be self-contradictory because passing judgment on others’ practices implicitly involves some form of moral assessment, thereby undermining its core assertion.

Normative relativism acknowledges that although cultural values differ, there are some shared purposes of morality—such as social conflict regulation and individual well-being. Morality thus serves to preserve society and promote harmonious coexistence, balancing stability with situational adaptability. Rules and norms must be sufficiently stable to maintain credibility but flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances, reflecting the Taoist principle from the Tao Te Ching that rigidity leads to death, and flexibility promotes life.

Regarding moral judgment and action, normative relativism distinguishes between the capacity to pass moral judgments and the appropriateness of acting upon them. While condemning practices like terrorism or environmental destruction can be justified based on shared moral standards, deciding what concrete actions to take involves complex considerations. For example, condemning environmental harm in a society is justified, but determining the appropriate response—diplomatic, economic sanctions, or intervention—is a separate moral challenge that requires careful judgment.

Paper For Above instruction

Morality relativism presents a compelling perspective on the diversity of human cultures and their moral systems, emphasizing tolerance and mutual respect. However, it also raises significant concerns about the limits of cultural tolerance, moral progress, and the possibility of objective moral standards. This paper explores the foundational claims of moral relativism, contrasting them with moral absolutism, and examines the implications for moral judgment and action in a pluralistic world.

The core assertion of cultural relativism is that morality is entirely dependent on cultural context. This perspective is supported by vivid examples, such as the practices of Inuit Eskimos—infanticide and euthanasia—that starkly contrast with Western ethical standards. These differences underscore the idea that moral standards are constructed by societies and that moral disagreements are often incommensurable. Such views promote tolerance but also threaten the ability to criticize harmful practices or injustices across cultures. For instance, if one accepts moral relativism without qualification, condemning practices like the Taliban’s oppression of women becomes problematic because moral standards are considered purely culturally determined. This indicates a potential moral paralysis where no action can be justified against practices deemed culturally accepted.

In contrast, moral absolutism asserts the existence of universal moral principles. For example, the prohibition against underage marriage or polygamy is held to be applicable everywhere and at all times. This stance relies on the belief that moral truths are akin to scientific facts—discoverable, objective, and not subject to cultural variation. Ethical progress, from this view, involves aligning human behavior with these unchanging moral standards. The debate over this issue echoes classical philosophical discussions, highlighting that while science advances through empirical verification, ethics faces the challenge of normative certainty without definitive proof. Morality thus may be viewed as progress toward discovering and embodying these universal truths, rather than merely relative societal conventions.

One notable challenge to extreme relativism is its logical inconsistency. If moral relativism suggests that no one can or should judge other cultures’ practices, then it implicitly criticizes the very act of moral judgment, including its own. For example, if one condemns Taliban practices as wrong, but also asserts that such judgment is illegitimate, a contradiction emerges. This paradox suggests that relativism must accept at least some form of normative standard to sustain coherent moral discourse. A more moderate form—normative relativism—acknowledges that while moral values differ among cultures, some shared functions justify moral norms, such as conflict resolution and social cohesion. This approach maintains the pragmatic and pluralistic aspects of morality without collapsing into the extremes of absolute relativism or moral imperialism.

Normative relativism emphasizes that moral norms are designed to serve societal purposes—like maintaining order and fairness—and are adaptable depending on specific circumstances. Such flexibility is vital for moral systems to remain relevant and credible. For instance, moral rules that are too rigid risk losing their influence, while overly fluid norms could undermine social stability. The Taoist principle from the Tao Te Ching echoes this balance: rigidity breeds death, while softness and flexibility promote life. Applying this idea to morality suggests that ethical systems must be resilient yet adaptable, fostering social harmony without succumbing to dogmatism.

The distinction between judging and acting upon judgments further complicates the relativist discourse. While it might be acceptable to condemn harmful practices universally—such as terrorism—deciding on the appropriate course of action is context-dependent. Ethical decision-making in complex situations requires analysis of potential consequences, cultural sensitivities, and shared moral goals. For example, condemning environmental destruction is justified, but whether intervention or sanctions are appropriate depends on broader considerations. This layered approach recognizes the universality of moral critique but respects the complexities of moral action in diverse cultural contexts.

In conclusion, moral relativism offers a nuanced view emphasizing cultural diversity and tolerance but faces substantial challenges regarding moral judgment, progress, and universality. Its limitations suggest that a balanced approach—recognizing the importance of shared human moral concerns while respecting cultural differences—is necessary for ethical deliberation in a pluralistic world. Developing such a framework entails understanding both the value of cultural sensitivity and the need for objective moral standards to champion human rights and justice globally.

References

• Rachels, J. (2003). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. In Fifty Readings in Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Benedict XVI. (2005). Homily at the Consistory for the Creation of New Cardinals. Vatican News.
• Kreeft, P. (2005). Does “relativism” need a spanking? Boston College Philosophy Department.
• Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford University Press.
• Shweder, R. (2003). Why Do Men Barbecue? Recipes for Cultural Psychology. Harvard University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Harman, G. (2018). Morality and Cultural Diversity. Routledge.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Pullman, D. (2004). Moral relativism and human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 26(3), 679-697.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Harvard University Press.