What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion, traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the “doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs”(Pojman, 24). Within the meaning of ethical relativism we can derive two theses; cultural relativism and the dependency thesis. Ethical relativism is a problematic theory because there are so many differences within cultures, and individual choices might not always be morally right choices. Because of this, what is culturally acceptable is not always morally right. Ethical relativism also has some objections towards the more specific theories of subjectivism and conventionalism.

Ethical relativism is supported due to the narrowing view of ethnocentrism, which is causing great “prejudice tantamount to racism and sexism” (Pojman, 25). Society is moving away from their ethnocentric view of the world, and allowing for more diversity in what is culturally right and wrong. Moral positions are being based on what their society is following or sees as ideal norms. Because of this turn to what one’s society feels what is right and wrong there is skepticism on these universal principles and absolutism. Ethical relativism is made up of two theses, the first being cultural relativism. This basically saying that “what is considered morally right and wrong varies form society to society”(Pojman,26), meaning that there is no universally morals which are accepted by all societies. This has truth to it because all cultures differ, what might be right in one country/society/religion may not be morally acceptable in other societies. In some cultures it might be morally acceptable to value slavery, genocide, or female circumcision; even though one may not like or approve of these practices, a cultural relativist must say this was acceptable because these practices are deemed as being acceptable within that culture. The second is the dependency thesis, “whether or not it is right or wrong for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which she or he belongs” (Pojman, 26). This means that there are still going to be “fundamental disagreements” among societies due to the fact that there are different practices under the same moral principle. Which one is acceptable solely depends on which culture you are from and where it is practiced.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although ethical relativism makes valid points that there are no valid universal moral principles but rather moral principles that are relative to culture or an individual’s choice; it also has objections that in which problems arise from this theory. The idea of Subjectivism; which is apart of ethical relativism states “that it is the individual who determines valid moral principles” (Pojman, 276). The problem with this subjective idea is that one could live by their own standards and make their own moral principles to follow. If they believe this to be true, who is an ethical relativist to judge someone like Hitler? Although what Hitler did in most eyes was bad and unethical, a subjective view would have to consider this to be moral because this is what he (Hitler) considered being right. Ted Bundy says: “all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong”” (Pojman, 29). Conventional ethical relativism is “the view that there are no objective moral principles but that all valid moral principles are justified (or are made true) by virtue of their cultural acceptance, recognizes the social nature of morality” (Pojman,31). Conventionalism brings up the question of obeying the law if you were part of a sub-culture. If a sub-culture does not agree with the “general moral basis for law, it is hard to see why we have any general duty to obey it” (Pojman, 33). Without a general set of universal moral laws, there will be no “firm basis for justifying our acts of civil disobedience against the “unjust laws”” (Pojman, 33). Another problem with this concept is the fact that our cultures and societies are made up of subcultures, which creates much diversity within the culture. It is the dominant culture that sets up something similar to a universal set of valid morals within a culture, but then one is not including all the sub-cultures that make up this dominant culture. “Relativism would seem to tell us that if a person belongs to societies with conflicting moralities, then that person must be judged wrong and not wrong whatever he or she does”(Pojman, 34). Religion, social groups, clubs, ethnicity, are all parts that make up these sub-cultures so why should they automatically follow the dominant cultures set of ideal morals, and what culture should they follow, and how many people make up a sub-culture? If one believes in an ethical relativist viewpoint, then they should rightly be allowed to follow their principles that are relative to their culture or individual choice.

In Book 1 of Plato’s Republic ethical relativism is introduced Thrasymachus conversation with Socrates. Thrasymachus believes that “justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.”(Plato, 19) Thrasymachus believes that the rulers and the strong of the cities have influenced the subjects’ ethical values and morals, making them believe that this is the norm. They feel that they are “serving their own best interests at least as much as anyone else’s” (Plato, xiv), but Thrasymachus believes that the rulers set ideal morals and values in order to ultimately please themselves. “The actions that subjects value as just, for example, are actions that benefit the rulers, not the subjects who do them” (Plato, xiv). Thrasymachus is trying to get across his point of ethical relativism, that it should be the individual’s choice to determine what their moral principles are rather than their rulers.

Ethical relativism perceives to problematic because each individual is different in what they think is right or wrong. It would be ideal if the world followed a set of universal morals in which everyone could agree upon, but in a realistic setting, everyone is different in either what they believe, or how culture has influenced them. Cultures have always differed in what is thought to be morally acceptable, and always will because of their ethnocentric view on different cultures. Ethical relativism will always be problematic because the world has trouble accepting new ideas, morals, and into their own culture, and with a universe becoming so culturally diverse and different it is hard for individuals to accept something different.

Works Cited

Plato. Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis: 1992.

Pojman, Louis P.. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 4th ed. Toronto: Thomson Learning, 2002.
: