What is meant by relativism, and explain the strengths and weaknesses of the point of view compared with absolutism.

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 the same they would most certainly find our culture just as immoral as we may find theirs. However, this is where cultural relativism shoots itself in the foot; it undermines any logical basis to justify that we should accept other cultures’ behaviour, for if another country’s culture believes that it is acceptable to destroy other cultures, accepting their culture would compromise your own ethics. It can also be criticised as the underlying principles in all societies are extremely similar, and whilst we may act on them differently; the practice of killing one’s parents when they reach a certain age may be seen as cruel in Britain, but in Viking societies it was seen as helping them reach the afterlife; in both societies the action taken would be based on the underlying principle of loving and caring for your parents.

Absolutism is precisely the opposite; an absolutist would argue that actions are intrinsically right or wrong in themselves, and their morality is fixed in all cultures, societies, all times and for all people. Hence an absolutist would not accept that in one culture it is deemed “morally acceptable” to carry out capital punishment, and in another it has been banned for moral reasons; an absolutist would accept one of the two points of view as the “moral” action, and dismiss the other as wrong. “Absolutists believe that the moral quality of an act is inherent in the quality of the act itself” (Jenkins). Plato was an absolutist because of his view on forms. His view on forms was inspired by mathematics. Plato believed that a concept such as 1+1=2 is timeless, unalterable by humans, and unchanging, and this applies to all mathematics. Plato explained this by stating that numbers were abstract entities, existing in the world of forms. He thought of Good, Justice, Truth, and Beauty under the same light; he believed that they are unchanging, and saw them as objects. Thus he believed that “goodness” was not a concept of acceptable societal behaviour. He believed that morality was not subjective, but objective, and everybody’s actions should be judged by the same means, regardless of culture or personal beliefs, as there is only one true good.

Absolutism can be criticised on the basis that it can be used by one culture to inflict their moral beliefs on other countries on the basis that they believe their moral values are in fact “absolutes”, colonisation was a prime example of this, with European settlers enslaving, slaughtering, and imprisoning natives because they knew how the natives ought to live, as the settlers’ moral knowledge was “absolute”. However the defence for absolutism is similar to a criticism for relativism, in that the underlying principles in almost all societies are similar, and it is believed by most that because the underlying principles are correct, although other cultures may commit immoral acts, their overall morality is very similar to that of ours, and thus can be judged in the same way.

Relativism has its advantages against absolutism; it avoids conflict, and is often seen to be a lot more tolerant towards other cultures, however, this could also be seen as a disadvantage, for should we accept the ku klux klan’s beliefs of persecuting a minority group? Also it seems that relativism is more of an excuse to avoid conflict than encourage moral behaviour. It is inconceivable that even the strongest believers of relativism would accept the opinion of their mother’s murderer that it was a moral and just decision to that they made to kill her. Absolutism simply sets guidelines, and although a totalitarian absolutist rule of the world would be disastrous, the fact that we can accept differences in culture because of a similar basic moral foundation to their beliefs, (thou shalt not kill etc…). It would be impossible to maintain a society based on individual relativism, as rapists would be let rampant provided they believed in what they were doing, and murderers would be let off the hook provided they were angry enough/ drunk enough at the time of the murder to believe that their actions were moral. Absolutism is the only way to run a society successfully, and the only way to help with human rights in other countries.