All ethical statements are relative. By examining the justifications for - and implications of making this claim, decide whether or not you agree with it.

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Jenny Alexander ToK

“All ethical statements are relative.” By examining the justifications for - and implications of – making this claim, decide whether or not you agree with it.

Ethical relativism is the notion that morals and ethics exist in relation to culture, society or even the individual. “All ethical statements are relative”, in other words, all ethical statements are in relation to different cultures. This is so as not to favour the morals from a particular culture, since no culture is particularly wrong or right.

Many have approved of this concept, but in practise has certain implications that make the concept debateable.

To consider all ethical statements relative rules out standard morals, and so there is nothing for one to compare a society too and judge whether they are right or wrong. This is so as to rise above the partiality of your own culture, morals and background, and treat every culture equally.

Obviously this is hard to do since the way we are brought up affects our judgement. And so what people from one culture may find normal might appal those from another culture. And vice versa. An example of this would be Sati, the Indian tradition where the widowed wife dies in the flames of her husband’s dead body. This may seem wrong to other cultures, but things such as pre-marital sex or even relationships, may seem equally appalling to them.

Relativism can only function with tolerance. But as with many things, this is easier said than done. Another question is to what extent should someone else’s culture be tolerated?

An example of a cultural clash is in France where the French minister, Fadela Amara banned the burka since it represents “the oppression of women”. She says that she is “in favour of the burka not existing in my country”. This is where ethical relativists may diverge. Some may argue that those living in another country are obliged to respect and abide to the traditions and moral opinions of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Relativism can only function with tolerance. But as with many things, this is easier said than done. Another question is to what extent should someone else’s culture be tolerated?

People will think that their own view makes more sense, but may not realise that that the other person probably has their own justifications for their view.

However societies are changing and morals are reforming with time. As people are travelling, communicating and interacting more cultures are intermingling and so morals and ethics are evolving and in effect becoming more similar. The role of media has been the most effective to show these differences. International written, visual media, and the Internet are becoming easily accessible and people are becoming more aware of their right to information. This enables individuals to compare the morals in each culture, and decide independently whether their own culture is right or wrong. An example of this is women in afghan are realising their unequal treatment after becoming more aware of the world around them, and as a result are working to reform their countries beliefs

And this is what ethical relativism fails to observe. People within their own culture question whether what they are doing is right. If nobody were there to do this then we’d be in a world where no one objected to women inequality, racism, and cannibalism and there would be continuous oblivious violation of people’s rights. Ethical relativists end up being very inconsistent with their argument. If they were to be consistent relativist in that no culture is wrong, then things like Germanys prejudice to Jews wouldn’t be right or wrong. The same applies with examples such as Apartheid in South Africa. This is because ethical relativism assumes that every culture is right in their own way and should not be judged.

And therefore these are the repercussions of relativism.

Cultures have to change with modernisation and globalisation. Recently there has been a discovered correlation between the amount of plane crashes in the particular country and their culture. The example was of Korea. Subordinates are supposed to treat those of higher authority with respect to the degree where they can’t approach them, unless asked to. This causes problems on board an airline, since there are times where communication to the cockpit is crucial, but their culture prohibits it. This is an example of a situation where culture clashes with the modern world.

So it’s not only natural, but it’s in some cases crucial for morals to evolve, in order to keep up with the modern world. This causes morals to become more and more similar. As this is happening, ethical relativism will start to become a more obsolete opinion.

Therefore I disagree with the claim in question more than I agree with it.

To a certain degree ethical statements should be relative, in cases where human rights aren’t violated, and everything remains consensual. This would allow the desired equality each culture deserves. As well as maintain intercultural harmony.

Ethical relativism assumes each cultures right. This would prevent moral development. And so the implications occur when a certain practises violate the fundamental morals of most societies.