Moral Relativism: A Fact Or A Fallacy

Over many centuries, there have been countless debates on what actually determines whether an action is right or wrong. Many philosophers such as Franz Boaz and Ruth Benedict have supported the claim that there are no moral absolutes. This is moral relativism: the view that moral actions are right or wrong relative to a particular perspective which is the opposite of moral objectivism. However, these claims could be misleading as there are many arguments that contradict it.

Firstly, relativists overstress cultural diversity. Opponents of moral objectivism bring up the fact that different cultures and societies have different conceptions of morality. Relativists believe that the absence of common values among cultures would impede the survival of that community. This claim takes its foundation in certain experiments which show that there is a “universally shared moral faculty” which is characterized in all human beings on the basis of evolutionary customs. Kohlberg argues that any theory of moral development that tries to form a general way of development will fall flat if moral judgements do not claim universal values. Also, what could appear to be different could simply be underlying common values. For instance, according to an Australian maxim, “If the native made a ‘find’ of any kind and marked it, it was thereafter safe for him, as far as his own tribesmen were concerned, no matter how long he left it.” A Roman maxim says that, “Justice is the settled and permanent intention of rendering to each man his rights.” These maxims may seem different but have a virtue in common: honesty (Lewis, 2014).

In addition, relativism is logically self-refuting. For a person to be a whole-hearted relativist, that person must be able to avoid being committed to any fundamental moral principle. This proves to be very difficult as even the most coherent relativist will always agree on certain moral rules. For example, it will be very difficult for a relativist who was a victim of theft to forget about the situation and say that there is nothing wrong with stealing if that is what the other party wishes to do. The same goes for other ethical rules such as those on murder and adultery just to mention a few. So many relativists became objectivists because of this simple truth. Thus, it will be very difficult to be a coherent relativist.

Consider this argument between Vera, a student of Camford University, and her younger sister Relativa. Relativa wrote an essay defending cultural relativism (an aspect of moral relativism). Relativa was raised to believe that morality is objective. However, she changed her mindset after learning that other cultures could disagree about morality. For instance, she claims that if she calls infanticide wrong, it is because her society does not approve of it. Vera asked her sister if she ever disagreed with her culture about certain norms. Relativa answered that she hardly does. However, Relativa did not consider that at some point in life, we all disagree with generally accepted norms. For instance, if everyone else approved of getting drunk and speeding while driving, Relativa would probably disagree. This leads to the issue of minority views being ignored. This limits the ability of a society to be self-critical. In fact, a cultural relativist living in South Africa during the era of apartheid would have to see it as good.

Another typical scenario is the Kyrgyz bride kidnapping. More than fifty percent of married women in Kyrgyzstan are taken away from the streets in a tradition that seems similar to elopement, but in reality, it is more dangerous (Beyerstein, 2005). A typical relativist will argue that this is simply a custom and that one should be tolerant towards the cultures of others. But if the reasons for carrying out these elopements were legitimate, kidnapping would not be an option. However, one can see that this act of kidnapping is barbaric and inexcusable as it causes thousands of innocent women to suffer unjustly. In addition, nearly every single person will agree that violence against women is a cowardly act and should not go unpunished. These and many more case studies would prove that moral relativism is truly not a right way to judge an action.

Some relativists bring up the argument of the untenability of moral objectivism. Relativists believe that the notion of moral objectivism has been queried. The oldest form of objectivism can be derived from the natural law of St. Thomas Aquinas which states that human beings have a natural insight on morality based on the light of understanding given by God. Supporters of relativism believe that objectivists cannot agree on the philosophical foundation of what is correct. For instance, domestic violence against women is seen as wrong based on the assumption that men and women should enjoy equal rights. Relativists believe that an objectivist would not know how to prove this to someone who categorically disagrees with this. However, the argument of untenability of moral objectivism and many other arguments in support of relativism have been proven to be repudiated on the basis that there are obvious moral wrongs which are not limited strictly to the religious realm. Nearly everyone can agree on certain actions such as rape and murders are acts of injustice and should not be condoned.

In conclusion, one can observe that the notion of moral relativism is one with many loopholes. Apart from it being inconsistent, it tries to paint many moral wrongs as right. However, one should note that relativism does not imply that every single principle is absolute. Moral actions could still depend on intention and circumstance. But, there are certain actions that everyone can identify as wrong or right no matter the circumstance which is the main idea of objectivism as opposed to relativism.

Bibliography

1. Beyerstein, L. (2005, May 03). Relativism case study; Krygyz bride kidnapping. Retrieved from Majikthise: https://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/05/relativism_case.html
2. Habermas, J. (1995). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. MIT Press. Translated by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Webber Nicholsen.
3. Harry J. Gensler, E. W. (2004). Ethics: Contemporary Readings. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
4. Lewis, C. (2014). The Abolition of Man. Quebec: Samizdat University Press.
5. Luno, A. (n.d.). Natural Law, Natural Rights and Politics.
6. Westacott, E. (n.d.). Moral Relativism. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/