• 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. Compare and contrast Plato and Aristotle on the acquisition of ethical understanding.

    Aristotle could be seen to be saying that even though the basic principles of how to live well should be adhered to, Eudemonia is still subjective to the individual. Plato would argue that ethics has a subject matter and therefore ethical judgements have truth conditions and do not simply express emotions or attitudes.

  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. Famine, Affluence and Morality - Peter Singer.

    A person may be praised for their generosity if they donate money to charity, but they are not condemned if they do not. People may give money to charity because it is a good thing to do, or because it gives them a sense of wellbeing, but they probably do

  2. 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.

  1. Discuss whether moral judgments are subjective or objective

    Yet, this too faces criticism; what if a situation were too arise where the majority of people wanted something to be done that was clearly reprehensible wrong. For example, during WWII, Hitler and his Nazis followers began the extermination of all Jews.

  2. How does E.R. make use of the Conventions of a hospital drama?

    In Rampage - Dr. Green has to tell a young boy that his mother is dead. Another convention regularly used is, moral dilemmas an example in the Friendly fire is when a hero saves lives but was operating machinery whilst being stoned

  1. What is meant by relativism, and explain the strengths and weaknesses of the point ...

    putting it into context of what is socially acceptable in the society in which they live. Relativism is widely supported on the basis that it tolerates other cultures and their different beliefs and behaviours, for after all, how can we judge their morality against our own, when if they did

  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.

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