Moral relativism
Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist.
Descriptive moral relativism holds that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, without passing any evaluative or normative judgments about this disagreement. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that moral judgments contain an (implicit or explicit) indexical such that, to the extent they are truth-apt , their truth-value changes with context of use. Normative moral relativism holds that everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist. Though often intertwined, these are distinct positions. Each can be held independently of the others.
American philosopher Richard Rorty in particular has argued that the label of being a “relativist” has become warped and turned into a sort of pejorative. He has written specifically that thinkers labeled as such usually simply believe “that the grounds for choosing between such [philosophical] opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought”, not that every single conceptual idea is as valid as any other. In this spirit, Rorty has lamented that “philosophers have… become increasingly isolated from the rest of culture.”
Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years across a variety of contexts during the history of civilization. Arguments of particular notability have been made in areas such as ancient Greece and historical India while discussions have continued to the present day. Besides the material created by philosophers, the concept has additionally attracted attention in diverse fields including art, religion, and science.
Moral relativism and ethical relativism are essentially the same concept, referring to the philosophical idea that moral or ethical judgments are not universally true but are relative to individuals, societies, or cultures. While often used interchangeably, “moral relativism” can be seen as a broader term, while “ethical relativism” more specifically applies this concept to the cultural and social contexts of ethics.
What they both assert:
- No Objective Right or Wrong: There are no universal, objective moral standards that apply to everyone, everywhere.
- Context-Dependent Morality: What is considered right or wrong depends on the person, society, or culture in which the judgment is made.
Key Aspects:
- Cultural Relativism: This is a common form of ethical relativism that emphasizes that moral standards are relative to specific cultures or societies.
- Individual Relativism (Subjectivism): Another form where moral judgments are relative to individual attitudes or beliefs.
- Descriptive Relativism: The observation that different people and cultures have different ethical views.
- Metaethical Relativism: The view that the truth conditions of moral terms like “good” and “bad” are not universal but are tied to specific traditions and practices.
Why the terms are often used interchangeably:
- The core idea—that morality isn’t absolute but varies—is the fundamental principle behind both “moral relativism” and “ethical relativism”.
In essence:
- Think of “moral relativism” as the general philosophical position.
- Think of “ethical relativism” as the application of this general idea specifically to ethics, often focusing on societal or cultural frameworks.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] wikipedia/en/Moral_relativism
[6] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/moral-relativism