Could moral relativism be true?

Authors Avatar

Ethics (SS-0117-M) Supplementary Assessment

UB 02011477

Could moral relativism be true?

Moral relativism defines a philosophical approach to ethics starkly contrasting to earlier moral philosophies. Moral relativism, although divided into various schools of thought, represents a view in which right and wrong are not static and definable entities by which the beliefs or the deeds of others can be measured, but rather that moral frameworks are culturally specific, or relative. This view was formulated by Anthropologists working in the wake of pre 20th century colonialism, with its civilising ethos, Christian missions and enlightened (some may say elitist) social and moral structure. This work does not seek to offer a detailed commentary of the various schools of relativist thinking in ethics and morality, but rather consider the most fundamental objections to the concept of moral relativism and therefore determine whether it is, in its fundamental interpretation and application, a valid representation of morality and its role in societies or, as many have claimed, a dangerous and inconsistent argument allowing barbarity and inhumanity to be excused and even accepted.

One of the more famous proponents of this later view, not to mention more scathing

in appraisal, is Bernard Williams. In “Morality: An Introduction to Ethics” (1972), Williams outlines his philosophical objection to moral relativism, combining this with a scarcely disguised distain for the potential consequences of its application, and therefore the very concept itself. Using language such as “heresy”, “vulgar” and “unregenerate” in the first paragraph of his commentary (p34), seems to set this scornful tone beyond all doubt.

 So why then should moral relativism arouse such passionate opposition, based as it is on an attempt to prevent elitist and discriminatory interference in foreign cultures? Interference which led, for example,  to the cultural re-education of North American Indian children after the massacre of the “battle” of Wounded Knee, or indeed to Aid to African nations, to combat the modern scourge of aids, being based upon Christian moral values such as sexual abstinence.

Moral relativism, in essence, states that a moral judgment about the behaviour of people in other cultures cannot justifiably be made; as what is right for a western Christian might be wrong for an eastern Muslim, and vice versa. Therefore practices such as polygamy, female circumcision, capital punishment, religious law and many other controversial aspects of foreign societies cannot be objectively deemed right or wrong as no society may claim its moral code is superior. Therefore, for example, the polygamous marriages of many men in Islamic countries is morally right for that social structure and is broadly accepted as such amongst the peoples of that society. Therefore it cannot objectively be deemed as wrong, however abhorrent to our values, by the judgment of any person from within our own social and moral structure.

Join now!

Returning to Williams however there is one potentially fatal weakness to this arguably entirely plausible argument and it offers some explanation as to why moral relativism should be held in such particular distain by so many. Could the argument not equally be made to say that the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany was acceptable as part of the wider moral and social climate of the time, and therefore it was no business of the world community to pass judgment on the German nation? This question of fundamental human rights, a relatively modern concept in itself, seems to be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay