ETHICAL RELATIVISM: CHARACTERISTICS, TYPES AND CRITICISMS - PHILOSOPHY - 2025

The ethical relativism is the theory that there is no absolute universal rule in the moral rectitude of society. Consequently, it is argued that the ethical performance of an individual depends or is relative to the society to which he belongs.

It is also called epistemological relativism, since its basic idea is that there are no universal truths about the world, only different ways of interpreting it. This goes back to Greek philosophy, where the phrase "man is the measure of all things" was used.

Later, more contemporary statements followed, such as that truths are subjective depending on the point of view of whoever analyzes them, or that for each culture there are different types of agreement.

There are also positions towards the scientific that seek to be objective and logical, called relative truths - ethical. From these considerations follows moral relativism, the theory that there are no universally binding absolute, objective and moral truths.

The ethical relativist denies that there is any objective truth about right and wrong. Ethical judgments are not true or false, because there is no objective truth that is adequate for a moral judgment.

It can be said that for these authors, morality is relative, subjective, and not binding.

Characteristics of ethical relativism

-What is considered morally correct and incorrect varies from society to society, so there are no universal moral standards.

-Whether or not it is correct for an individual to act in a certain way depends or is relative to the society to which he or she belongs.

-There are no absolute or objective moral standards that apply to all people, everywhere and at all times.

-Ethical relativism maintains that even beyond environmental factors and differences in beliefs, there are fundamental disagreements between societies. In a sense, we all live in radically different worlds.

-Each person has a set of beliefs and experiences, a particular perspective that colors all their perceptions.

-Their different orientations, values ​​and expectations govern their perceptions, so that different aspects are highlighted and some characteristics are lost. Even as our individual values ​​arise from personal experience, social values ​​are grounded in the peculiar history of the community.

-They see morality as a set of norms, habits and common customs that have obtained social approval over time, so that they seem part of the nature of things, like the facts.

Types

Subjective

Subjectivism makes morality a useless concept, since, in its premises, it exercises little or no interpersonal criticism and its judgments are logically possible.

While some cultures may feel good about killing bulls in a bullfight, there are so many that certainly feel otherwise. No argument on the matter is possible. The only thing that could be used for a member of this culture or anyone else, would be the fact that it would be wrong if they didn't live by their own principles.

However, one of them could be that hypocrisy is morally permissible (he feels good about it), so it would be impossible for him to do wrong. This creates controversy as to what would be ethically correct, compared to other points of view.

Different artistic, literary and cultural personalities have opposing opinions in relation to these issues, since it means that all individuals are members of diverse cultures and that good or evil is morally subjective, depending on who the judges are and what the meaning is. of interpersonal evaluation.

Conventional

In the view of conventional ethical relativism, there are no objective moral principles, but all are valid and justified by virtue of their cultural value, taking into account acceptance, where the social nature of morality is recognized, being precisely in its power and virtue.

In addition, it recognizes the importance of the social environment, through the generation of customs and beliefs, and that is why many people assume that ethical relativism is the correct theory, since they are attracted by its liberal philosophical stance.

Therefore, this position seems to strongly imply an attitude of tolerance towards other cultures. According to Ruth Benedict, "by recognizing ethical relativity, a more realistic social faith will be reached, accepting hope as a foundation and, as new bases, tolerance for coexisting and equally valid life patterns."

The most famous of those who occupy this position is the anthropologist Melville Herskovits, who argues even more explicitly in his lines that ethical relativism implies intercultural tolerance:

1) Morality is relative to your culture

2) There is no independent basis for criticizing the morality of any other culture

3) Therefore, one must be tolerant of the morals of other cultures.

Differences between social sciences and ethics

The differentiation of these concepts has been key in the theory of ethical relativism, since while anthropology and sociology are empirical sciences with fields of study based on observations and facts, ethics is a normative discipline, on moral judgments and values.

The social sciences are limited to what can be observed, measured, and verified. The question of what is right and wrong is outside the discipline, immersed in the field of ethics. A scientist can only predict a certain result, and not whether that result is morally right or wrong.

When a scientist makes a moral statement, he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as a concerned citizen who has recognized the separation of roles and has hung up his role as a researcher in parentheses to speak as a citizen.

For example, it is expected that a doctor treats all his patients with the same care, regardless of who they are, or that a judge even if outside of his court strongly condemns an individual, in his role is limited to obtaining evidence that indicates or not The accused.

Likewise, an actor can win applause for the excellence of his portrayal as a villain, not for the approval of what his character did, but for the merits of his work.

Exactly the same is true of the scientist who has performed his full function when he has clearly represented the consequences of a type of behavior (Lundberg 1965, page 18).

critics

Most ethicists reject this theory, as some claim that while the moral practices of societies may be different, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices are not.

Furthermore, it is argued that it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative, while others are not.

Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local customs, while others, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged as bad despite of the many other differences that exist between cultures.

Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications on individual moral beliefs, stating that if the goodness or badness of an action depends on the norms of a society, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's own society and turning away from those in which one acts immorally

For example, if being a member of a society with racial or sexist practices is morally permissible for that group of individuals, then should those practices be accepted as morally correct?

This is why critics consider that this view of ethical relativism promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society.

Justifications of ethical relativism

Herodotus was a Greek historian of the 5th century BC, who advanced on this point of view when he observed that different societies have different customs and that each person believed that the customs of their own society were the best.

Some contemporary sociologists and anthropologists have argued along similar lines that morality is a social product, developed differently in each culture.

According to these authors, the different social codes are all that exists. There is no such thing as what is "really" correct, apart from these social codes, for there are no neutral cultural norms that can be used to determine which view of society is correct.

Every society develops standards that are used by people to distinguish acceptable behavior from unacceptable behavior, and every judgment of right and wrong presupposes one or the other of these standards.

Another argument that seeks to justify ethical relativism is due to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), who affirmed that moral beliefs are based on feeling, or emotion, not on reason.

This idea was developed by later philosophers, such as Charles L. Stevenson (1908-1979) and RM Hare (1919-2002), who argued that the primary function of moral language is not to state facts, but to express feelings of approval or disapproval towards some type of action or to influence the attitudes and actions of others.

Ethical relativism is attractive to many philosophers and social scientists, as it seems to offer the best explanation for the variability of moral belief. It also offers a plausible way of explaining how ethics fits into the world as described by modern science.

Finally, ethical relativism justifies being adequate to explain the virtue of tolerance, since it seeks to accept one's own values ​​and the values ​​of all societies.

Conclusions

Some acknowledge that the concept raises important questions. Ethical relativism reminds them that different societies have different moral beliefs and that their beliefs are deeply influenced by culture.

It also encourages them to explore beliefs that differ from their own, while challenging them to examine the motives for the beliefs and values ​​they hold.

On the other hand, it raises tolerance, which is certainly a virtue, but if morality as it arises is relative to each culture, and if any of these cultures do not have a principle of tolerance, their members will therefore not have the obligation to be tolerant..

Herskovits seems to treat the principle of tolerance as the only exception to his relativism. But from a relativistic point of view there is no reason to be tolerant than to be intolerant, and neither of these positions is morally better than the other.

References

1. David Wong, Ethical Relativity (University of California Press, 1984)
2. Michael Krausz, ed., Relativism: Interpretation and Conflict (University

   of Notre Dame Press, 1989).

3. Hugh LaFollette, "The Truth in Ethical Relativism," Journal of SociaI Philosophy (1991).
4. Peter Kreeft, A Refutation Of Moral Relativism: Interviews With an Absolutist (IgnatiUS Press, 1999).