Moral Relativism is much more flexible than other approaches to ethics as anything can be done as long as it is justifiable. This approach to ethics realises that everybody is different, as is every situation. What may be right for a Muslim woman of 50 may not be right for an English boy of six.
There are two types of Moral Relativism; Cultural, where peoples ideas of what is ‘right’ will vary according to the type of culture they live in. e.g. eating dog in China is considered ok, but in England is considered sick and inhumane. Equally eating cow in England is seen to be ok, but in Hindu countries is an illegal act. Cultural Moral Relativism has no absolute rights or wrongs, but changes over time and location. The second type of Moral relativism is Ethical. This is more based on emotions, what is right for someone in one culture, may not be right for a person in a different culture or situation. Different ethical decisions and judgements can all be logical.
A different type of Moral Relativism is Fletcher’s Situation Ethics, where he said that reaching the best conclusion was more important than the strict upholding of the law. He said that the only thing that could be done in every situation would be to do the most loving thing.
AO2 Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Moral Relativism.
Unlike other approaches to ethics, Moral Relativism is very flexible - nothing is always wrong, individual situations are taken into account and therefore better choices can be made.
Take the example of a 15 year old catholic girl who is raped and becomes pregnant. Even though she is young and was raped, and having the child may not be in her or its best interests, under catholic rules, she would be obliged to go ahead with the pregnancy, as Catholic rules state that all life is sacred and must be preserved. With a Moral Relativism approach to this situation she would be allowed to have an abortion. Having an abortion is not always to the best thing to do if a baby happens to be ‘inconvenient’ because of work or other commitments, but in this case it is the best thing to do. Here Moral Relativism shows its superiority in dealing with individual circumstances. Moral Relativism realises that every situation is different and may require a different approach, so the best decision is made every time, not one that is universally considered ‘right.’ Moral Relativism is not an ethical theory to base society on as nothing is wrong, as long as it is justifiable. Communities need structure and rules, so Moral relativism is only good for individual decision making, but in this way its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses
