Moral Relativism: Understanding Diverse Ethical Perspectives

Key Points

• "Moral Relativism" is the philosophical view that there are no universal, objective moral truths; instead, morality is considered relative to a specific culture, society, or individual (1).
• It stands in direct opposition to "Moral Absolutism" or "Moral Objectivism," which hold that certain moral principles are universally true for all people, in all places, at all times (2).
• The primary arguments for relativism are the observed diversity of moral codes across cultures ("The Argument from Cultural Diversity") and the promotion of tolerance and humility (3).
• The most significant criticisms include its inability to allow for "moral progress," its logical failure to condemn universal atrocities (like genocide), and the self,contradiction of promoting "tolerance" as a universal value (4).
• In society, relativism has had a positive impact by fostering open,mindedness in fields like anthropology, but it can also lead to moral apathy and an inability to engage in meaningful ethical debate (5).

Introduction: When Compasses Collide

Is it always wrong to lie? Is respecting your elders a universal command? Most of us navigate the world with a built,in moral compass, a seemingly firm sense of right and wrong. But what happens when that compass spins wildly? Consider the stark contrast between a society that values individual rights above all else and another that prioritizes communal harmony, even at the cost of personal freedom. Who is right? Is "anyone" right? This is the central, unsettling question posed by moral relativism, a philosophical idea that suggests there are no universal, objective moral truths. Instead, it posits that what is "right" and "wrong" is determined by, and is only meaningful within, a specific cultural or personal framework.

This is not an abstract thought experiment; it is one of the most pressing issues in our globalized, multicultural world. As we interact more and more with people whose beliefs and practices differ profoundly from our own, the comfortable certainty of our own moral code can begin to feel less like a universal law and more like a local custom.

This article, by ethics scholar Dr. Kenji Tanaka, will guide you through the complex landscape of this powerful idea. We will unpack the core tenets of moral relativism, explore the compelling arguments in its favor, and confront the dangerous and deeply problematic conclusions it can lead to. The goal is not to provide a final verdict, but to equip you with the tools for more nuanced ethical thinking, a skill we champion in our post on The Importance of Critical Thinking. Ultimately, understanding moral relativism is crucial for anyone trying to navigate the ethical challenges of the 21st century (6). All information is current as of September 15, 2025, at 11:10 AM GMT.

Deconstructing the Idea: What Exactly is Moral Relativism?

At its core, moral relativism is a "meta,ethical" theory, meaning it is a theory about the "nature" of morality itself. It is not a specific list of rules to follow. Instead, it makes a claim about all moral rules. The claim is this: the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

To understand this, it is crucial to make a distinction:

• Descriptive Relativism: This is the simple, empirical observation that different cultures have different moral codes. Anthropologists have documented this for centuries. Some cultures practice polygamy, others monogamy. Some consider it a duty to care for elderly parents at home, others do not. This is a statement of "fact" about the world.
• Meta,Ethical Relativism: This is the philosophical leap. It goes beyond observing differences and claims that because these differences exist, there is no "objective standard" by which one moral code can be judged as better than another. The moral code of a society determines what is right "for that society." There is no higher court of appeal. This is the version of relativism we will be exploring.

This stands in stark contrast to "Moral Absolutism," which claims that there are moral principles (e.g., "murder is wrong," "torture is wrong") that are universally binding, regardless of cultural opinion. For an absolutist, if a culture practices something like ritual human sacrifice, that practice is objectively wrong, period. For a meta,ethical relativist, one could only say that it is "wrong in our culture," but could not pass objective judgment on the culture that practices it.

The Appeal of Relativism: The Case for Tolerance and Humility

Moral relativism is not a fringe theory; its appeal is widespread and, in many ways, understandable. Its arguments are rooted in observations of the world and a desire for a more tolerant, less dogmatic way of living.

The Argument from Cultural Diversity

The most common argument for relativism is the sheer fact of moral disagreement. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus tells a story of the Persian king Darius, who brought together some Greeks and some Callatians. The Greeks had a custom of cremating their dead fathers, while the Callatians had a custom of "eating" their dead fathers. Darius asked each group what it would take for them to adopt the other's practice. Both were horrified and refused, convinced their own way was the only right way. The relativist looks at this and concludes that there is no objective fact of the matter about how to properly treat the dead. "Right" and "wrong" are just matters of custom and tradition.

The Argument for Tolerance

Perhaps the strongest emotional appeal of relativism is that it seems to be a key ingredient for tolerance. If we believe that our moral code is the one, true code, it can lead to arrogance, dogmatism, and a desire to impose our values on others, a hallmark of colonialism and cultural imperialism. Relativism, on the other hand, urges us to stop judging other cultures and to instead try to understand them on their own terms. It encourages an attitude of "live and let live," which seems like a prerequisite for a peaceful, pluralistic world. This connects to the themes we explored in Exploring Intersectionality, which emphasizes understanding diverse standpoints.

The Argument for Humility

Relativism also fosters a sense of intellectual humility. It forces us to recognize that our own deeply held moral beliefs are, to a large extent, a product of our upbringing and our society. We did not arrive at our beliefs about monogamy, individual rights, or animal welfare through pure, independent reason; we inherited them. This realization can prevent us from becoming too certain of our own rightness and more open to the possibility that we might be mistaken, or at least, that our way is not the only way.

The Critique of Relativism: The Slippery Slope to Moral Nihilism

Despite its appeal, most philosophers find moral relativism to be a deeply flawed and ultimately untenable position. The criticisms against it are powerful, pointing out that its logical conclusions are not only counterintuitive but morally monstrous.

The Problem of Moral Progress

Think about the changes in Western society over the last 200 years: the abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights to women and minorities, the establishment of protections for children. We instinctively call this "moral progress." But what does progress mean? It means "moving towards a better state." This implies the existence of a standard by which we can measure change. If moral relativism is true, the concept of moral progress makes no sense. The slave,owning society of the 1800s was not "worse" than our society today; it just had a "different" moral code. According to relativism, we cannot say we have improved; we can only say we have changed. This seems to profoundly misunderstand what reformers fought and died for.

The Inability to Condemn Atrocities

This is the most damning criticism. If a moral code is right simply because it is the accepted code of a culture, then we lose our ability to condemn even the most horrific acts in history. Consider Nazi Germany. Their cultural and legal system deemed the persecution and extermination of Jews and other minorities to be morally acceptable. A consistent relativist would be forced to say, "What the Nazis did was right for them, according to their moral code, even if it is wrong for us." This conclusion is morally repugnant. Most people believe that genocide is "objectively" and "universally" wrong, regardless of what any culture happens to believe. Relativism seems to strip us of the very language needed to make such a claim.

The Reformer's Dilemma

Relativism also creates a strange paradox for social reformers. People like Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, and Nelson Mandela are widely considered moral heroes. But they achieved this status by challenging the accepted moral codes of their "own" societies. If what is "right" is simply what the majority in a society believes, then these reformers were, by definition, acting "immorally." Relativism sides with the status quo and turns the moral hero into a moral deviant, which seems backward.

The Self,Contradiction of Tolerance

The idea that relativism promotes tolerance is also logically flawed. The argument is that because no moral code is universally true, we "ought" to be tolerant of other cultures. But the statement "we ought to be tolerant" is itself a universal moral claim. The relativist is trying to make "tolerance" an absolute value that applies to everyone. They cannot do this while also claiming that there "are" no absolute values. If a culture, for example, has a moral code that is deeply "intolerant," the relativist has no objective ground from which to criticize it.

Comparison: Moral Relativism vs. Moral Objectivism

Conclusion: Beyond the False Choice

So, are we trapped in a choice between an arrogant, dogmatic absolutism and a morally bankrupt relativism where "anything goes"? Most philosophers think not. The insights of relativism are important; we "should" be humble about our moral beliefs, and we "should" strive to understand the perspectives of other cultures before we pass judgment. The diversity of human moral experience is real and must be taken seriously.

However, this does not require us to abandon the idea of objective moral truth entirely. It is possible to be a "Moral Objectivist" without being a rigid "Moral Absolutist." One can believe that there are objective moral goods, like "human flourishing" and the "alleviation of suffering," while also recognizing that the specific rules for achieving these goods might be complex and context,dependent. We can believe that it is objectively wrong to cause gratuitous suffering while acknowledging that different cultures might have reasonable disagreements about complex issues like end,of,life care or economic justice.

The great danger of a simplistic relativism is that it encourages intellectual laziness. It allows us to dismiss any moral argument with a shrug and a "that's just your truth." The true philosophical task is to hold two ideas in tension: the humility to recognize that our own moral compass may be flawed, and the courage to insist that some things, like compassion, justice, and a respect for human dignity, are not just matters of opinion, but are stars by which all of us ought to navigate.

References

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Moral Relativism
2. The Basics of Philosophy - Moral Absolutism
3. The Ethics Centre - Ethics Explainer: Moral Relativism
4. CUNY - Problems with Ethical Relativism
5. BBC - Ethics: Moral Relativism
6. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Moral Relativism