0% found this document useful (0 votes)
101 views1 page

Ethical Relativism or Moral Relativism Is The

There are two forms of ethical relativism: personal and social. Personal relativism holds that morality is relative to each individual, so no one can say another's views are wrong. Social relativism claims morality is determined by each society's norms, so outsiders cannot judge another culture. The document provides examples like the Inuit abandoning elders or Indian practice of sati to illustrate these views. Ethical relativists believe morality is relative due to the diversity of values between groups, the difficulty of determining right from wrong, and differences in life situations across cultures.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
101 views1 page

Ethical Relativism or Moral Relativism Is The

There are two forms of ethical relativism: personal and social. Personal relativism holds that morality is relative to each individual, so no one can say another's views are wrong. Social relativism claims morality is determined by each society's norms, so outsiders cannot judge another culture. The document provides examples like the Inuit abandoning elders or Indian practice of sati to illustrate these views. Ethical relativists believe morality is relative due to the diversity of values between groups, the difficulty of determining right from wrong, and differences in life situations across cultures.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Ethical relativism or moral relativism is the the norms of a particular society.

Let us take, for


view that ethical or moral values and beliefs example, the ancient Indian practice of Sati or
are relative to the various individuals or societies Suttee.
that hold them. Thus, according to the ethical or
moral relativists, there is no objective right and As is well known, the ancient Indians had the
wrong. This means that what is right for one practice of burning the wife alive in the funeral
person is not necessarily right for another or what pyre of her deceased husband. Whatever the
is right in some circumstances is not necessarily reasons behind this practice, the act was seen as
in another. heroic. In fact, records show that some wives
willingly allowed themselves to be burnt alive on
Two Forms of Ethical Relativism their husbands’ funeral pyre. Indeed, if an
outsider is to judge this act, she may view this as
There are two forms of ethical relativism, namely, immoral, especially if she is a Christian. But for
the social ethical relativist, that might be the right
1) Personal or Individual Ethical Relativism and to do in that particular culture. This is because, for
2) Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism. the social ethical relativists, no society’s view is
better than any other in a trans-cultural
On the one hand, personal or individual ethical sense. Hence, no society has the right to say that
relativism holds that ethical judgments and particular culture of a certain society is wrong.
beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook
and attitudes of individual persons. Hence, for the From what we have just presented above, we can
individual ethical relativists, there is no objective draw three possible reasons that support ethical
standard of right and wrong inasmuch as the relativism.
“individual person” is the basis of moral
judgments. The ethical relativist may, therefore, First, on the diversity of moral values. The ethical
say “I have my own view and you have yours. relativists may have argued that the presence of
Neither my view nor yours is better or more disagreements on many ethical issues or even on
correct.” basic moral values or principles will prove the
point that we cannot attain objective truth. Hence,
Let us take, for example, senicide or geronticide, the idea of objective right and wrong is
that is, the abandonment to death or killing of the inconceivable for ethical relativists.
elderly. There was a common belief that during
famines or other extremely difficult situations, the Second, on moral uncertainty. Because of moral
Inuit or the indigenous people of Northern uncertainty, the ethical relativists would have
America would leave their elderly on the ice to argued that because there is great difficulty in
die. If this is indeed the case, the individual knowing what is the morally right thing to do or
relativist would say that no one, especially the believe, then again we cannot attain objective
outsiders of this culture, has the right to say that right or wrong.
the Inuit are wrong because the morality of such
action depends entirely on the individual Intuit Third and last, on situational differences. For the
beliefs. Hence, in individual ethical relativism, any ethical relativists, the situations and life world of
person has no right to say that others are correct different people vary so much that it is difficult to
or incorrect since to do so would assume an believe that same things that would be right for
objective standard of right and wrong. As we can one would be right for another. Hence, what is
see, this example is considered an individual or right or wrong for one may not be necessarily right
personal ethical relativism because it is the or wrong for another.
individual that is the basis of moral judgment.

On the other hand, social or cultural ethical


relativism holds that ethical values and beliefs
vary from society to society and that the basis of
moral judgment lies in these social or cultural
views. Thus, in determining the rightness or
wrongness of human actions, one must base it on

You might also like