• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Can there be a coherent Relativism?

Extracts from this document...


Can there be a coherent Relativism? Characterised generally relativism, within the context of ethics, is the view that all moral standards are relative to an individual or culture. Under a relativist conception of ethics there are no moral 'facts', and the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an action is dependent on the views, beliefs and values of groups, societies or cultures in which the actions are performed. Relativism is neatly summed up by the ancient Greek sophist Protagoras (480-411BC) in his statement that "Man is the measure of all things". And that there may in fact be more than just one true morality. Moreover what is morally right for one group or culture may not be right for every group or culture. This was a typical view among the sophists at the time of Protagoras and was grounded in a prevailing belief in 'Nomos' or social convention over 'Physis' or nature. However, when Protagoras uttered this statement he meant it to encompass all aspects of human life and not just morality. This strongest form of relativism, that all truths are relative not just moral ones, has led to its own unique set of problems but within the scope of this study we are concerned only to look at relativism within the context of ethics and morality in general. Can relativism form the bedrock for a coherent conception of morality? And if not what are the problems with the thesis that may render it incoherent? ...read more.


If relativism is true is it absolutely true or relatively true? For if it is relatively true we may simply refute what the thesis is claiming to advocate on its own grounds and by its own rules. So if we pass over this 'strong' relativism that seems to sink by its own weight and move on to a more sophisticated formulation we are faced with a question that seems to typify the very nature of the issue we are faced with in discerning the truth of relativism. Is it possible for two genuinely conflicting ethical beliefs to be equally valid? To help me illustrate this with more clarity it will be useful to look at the similarity commented3 on between questions of relativism within ethics and a possible analogy with Locke's primary4 and secondary qualities. If ethics are more like secondary qualities namely, colour, smell, taste, temperature etc... then the answer to the question I have just asked must be: 'yes' that 'it is possible for the two conflicting beliefs to be valid equally'. Secondary qualities are subjective and dependent on the perceiver. So if making a moral judgement is like making say a colour judgement the consequence of that judgement may vary from person to person. If we take the example of a 'colour blind' person who perhaps judges a red ball to be green might it not also be similarly the case that a 'morally blind' person might judge a right action to be wrong. ...read more.


Can relativism provide answers to specific examples in our own history where we judge an action wrong? Can relativism justify the actions of for example Hitler? To say that 'Hitler ought not to have done what he did' by our usage of language somehow sounds too-weak to describe the enormity of the crime he committed, even to call it a crime seems to underplay it by putting it in the same basket as thieves or fraudsters. We can't say that what Hitler did was wrong or we would be judging him by our own standards and culture. But was Hitler really outside of our culture? Relativism does not really provide us with an answer to this example. Relativism faces criticism on another front also in its failure to allow condemnation of the customs of other cultures such as slavery and its not allowing us to say that such practices are inferior to our own. It is clear however that such practices as slavery are morally indefensible. So, to bring the matter to a close, what can be said? Is the thesis of ethical relativism really doomed to in-coherency? Is there anything that may be said in its favour? It is clear that stronger forms of relativism are subject to serious and even fatal problems, however if relativism is used wisely it is a robust thesis, able to withstand a good deal of critical analysis, that can adequately make sense of differences in ethical beliefs from culture to culture. So long as it is not pushed to extremes it seems to me that it manages to survive the challenge of in-coherency. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Ethics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Ethics essays

  1. Explain the differences between relative morality and absolute morality.

    Absolutists state that moral codes should be universal and believers in this theory are often [but not always] religious.A vast majority of religious followers subscribe to the absolute morality theory and believe that ethical morality is rooted firmly in their religious teachings, whatever that religion maybe.

  2. "'Right' and 'wrong' are just expressions of preference; they do not refer to any ...

    He believed it to have no real value or use because the statements cannot be proved or disproved so debating them would get you nowhere. It does not prove anything because opinions are neither right nor wrong. This leads some people to seeing this side of ethics as a waste

  1. Explain how a Hindu marriage service might guide a couple in their married life?

    They can be craftsmen, dressmakers, cooks, or chauffeurs etc. Some people are believed to be so unclean that they are outside of the Varna system. These people call themselves Dalits (oppressed). For jobs they have to deal with dead bodies and clear away rubbish.

  2. Aristotle - Virtue Ethics Essay

    Frankena says that "not distinguishing history from philosophy bothers me". However, Macintyre firmly argues his position by suggesting that Frankena is restricted by academic principle which usually places a division between history and philosophy. Virtue ethics may have its failings yet it would appear to be more applicable to an

  1. Explain the significance of Plato's analogy of the cave. Is it of relevance to ...

    None of the prisoners have ever been out of the cave and they have spent all their time in the cave and to pass the time they play games of recognising the objects and guessing which one is going to come next.

  2. Euthanasia can never be justified

    No human has the right to take the life of another innocent human even if they wanted to die. Not all Christians are against euthanasia though. They might think that the main thing to consider with a terminally ill person is how one would feel if they were suffering.

  1. Different religious and philosophical views on controversial topics.

    Kantian A Kantian would say that this is wrong because we have a duty to have a monogamous sexual relationship and only then for procreation because once we look upon another human sexually they cease to become human in our desiring which in turn is in breach of our duty to respect the humanity of others.

  2. "Miller's plays show is that happiness can only be achieved by making moral compromises" ...

    business doesn't inspire me...if I have to grub for money all day long at least at evening I want it beautiful". This shows that Chris would not willing to make moral compromises and lie just to make money, or to maintain a business, because he believe happiness comes from something else - "I want a family".

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work