Moral Relativism
Moral Relativism has been defined as the theory that norms of right/wrong depend upon the “say so” (conventions) of a culture. Defend (with an argument) a thesis for or against Moral Relativism. Are some moral norms objectively better than others? How might the “problem of the arbitrary” (that we saw in Plato’s criticism of the Divine Command Theory) also apply to Moral Relativism? Feel free to refer to an example or two of a morally relevant cultural norm in your discussion of relativism. Please cite the textbook, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues 9th edition, Mackinnon and Fiala.
Sample Solution
Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is the belief that moral judgments are only true or false from a specific viewpoint. Say you think an action is right or wrong. That is your viewpoint. But if we step into someone else`s viewpoint, well, right and wrong may not mean quite the same thing. One of the fundamental beliefs in moral relativism is that no one viewpoint is natural better than others. Moral relativism has been around, in some form or another, for a pretty long time. Philosophers in ancient India and ancient Greece were both known to write about the idea that everybody interpreted morals differently. For most of human history, people assumed their ways of life were right, while others were wrong. This was especially true during the industrial era, when the world become obsessed with modernity and technology. But then, someone asked that ever important question: is this really better than anything else? And once you admit that no one society is naturally better than others, you have to ask whether your morals are naturally better.
