Moral relativism is the belief that morals are dependent on one’s personal views or the collective view of one’s culture. It is a theory that is directly opposed to the view of moral absolutes, which teaches there are moral laws that apply to all people, in all places, at all times and are not subject to change. I will discuss and critique several main types of moral relativism. I will then argue that a moral law is required to render moral judgments and moral disagreements meaningful. This is the view that the foundation for moral judgments is ones personal opinions or feelings. This theory realizes that there is wrong and right but when there is a difference of opinion or variation, the truth of that moral is relative to the individual. Truth is then subject to the individual’s interpretation and experience in life. Sometimes it can be taken further to the point of denying truths altogether and only accepting personal opinion. Finally criticizing another society such as Nazi Germany would be unjustified and we could not say Nazi Germanys actions were wrong or immoral. Cultural relativism is most often confused with normative ethics, however it is different. Cultural relativism is more anthropological in substance. People who hold this theory of morality acknowledge that since there is a wide variety of moral opinion and practices, with different cultures no moral absolutes can exist. Since difference exists in the morality of cultures, basically no one can claim that their culture’s view on morality is better or more correct then another culture’s view on morality. This is the case only when both societies have the same view that there is such a thing as right and wrong, but disagree about what actions are right and wrong. One way that we know that a universal moral law exists is that without it, moral disagreements would make no sense. When people argue they say things like "your wrong" or "that’s not fair" what is interesting about these statements is that the person saying them is not merely saying that the other person’s behavior does not please him. He is appealing to some other standard of behavior, which he expects the other person to know about. Some actions in the world are truly right and others are truly wrong. Moral truths are not just opinions or preferable tastes. The bible teaches there is an absolute moral law written on the hearts of all men. The moral law is given by God and derived from His character. It is known by all men and is absolute and unchanging. Reasons for rejecting the moral law are often based on our failure to distinguish between applied practices with principles, or human actions with reactions. Denying moral law is self-defeating and leads to chaos.
Subjective moral Relativism
Very few people who hold this view take it to its logical conclusion that is a nihilistic view of life. Subjectivism simply becomes a way to live life as guilt free and non-offensive as possible. When someone offers an opinion that contradicts their own, both views are seen as correct from their personal vantage points.
Therefore each person acts according to their own moral code and their own consciences. For a subjectivist the issue is not truth but personal experiences if the effect of a moral action is a benefit and rewarding, then that action is seen as good, but if the action has a negative or damaging effect, then the action is considered as bad. Thus it is perceived that a persons response to their conscience and moral obligation is developed by experience with previous moral issues.
To critique this viewpoint we only need to look at the first presumption that the moral subjectivist makes and that is moral absolutes do not exist. To claim that there are no moral absolutes is to claim that there is at least one absolute: that moral absolutes do not exist. The idea that someone can progress morally or become a better person is impossible, for the theory of moral subjectivism claims that they're already morally right or good and that there is no standard for evaluating progress.
This theory also contradicts the law of non-contradiction, which is two opposing views cannot both be right at the same time in the same context, either both are wrong or one is right and the other is wrong. Finally someone who holds this view cannot say that someone else’s view of morality is wrong for it would contradict the subjectivist’s own view.
Conventional Relativism or Normative ethics
This type of view when applied to morals is based on what is considered normal behavior by a particular culture. Everyone should act accordingly with the views held in that particular culture. A moral action is judged as right or wrong in accordance to what the majority in the society views as right, or wrong, if this is applied correctly then the society lives in relative harmony.
Conventional relativism will not assume that what is right for one particular society is right for another. For example, if one society practices euthanasia then it is right for that society but not necessarily right for another. One society might practice what is seen as immoral by another society but both societies are seen as practicing moral behavior.
This theory does not support the idea that there are absolute truths; instead the truths are conditional based on the representatives of the majority in a society. Although two cultural groups might believe the same thing, conventional relativists do not teach that the way one group practices a belief is the same way that another cultural group practices a belief.
The conventional theory does not suggest that culturally accepted norms do not change. The views of the majority can change based on any number of events that can occur within a particular society. Take for instance the laws in Australia that prohibited homosexuality and the cultural idea of "gay bashing" overtime due to many reasons, this changed. Clearly Australia’s society has changed and has accepted homosexuality to conform to change in laws, values and beliefs.
To critique this view we can look at cultural change in ones society, why should a culture change its moral values if it was not wrong to begin with? A second problem is that conventional relativism teaches not to criticize socially approved morality. If this is the case then, it is absurd for an individual or a minority group to strive for moral improvement, because the status quo is already viewed by the majority as morally acceptable. For example if the torture of babies was practiced in society, the minority should either remain quiet on the subject or conform their views to the majority opinion.
Cultural or descriptive moral relativism
Ruth Benedict argues that morality should be explained in cultural terms. Though a society may claim that a action is morally right, all it is really claiming is that the action has been adopted by that culture and been approved socially.
Cultural relativism should not be viewed as a moral theory. It is not prescriptive in nature, but descriptive. Those who hold this view of morality do not simply believe that morality is relative to one’s culture. Instead they believe that all moral beliefs are nothing more then a cultural norm. Abortion would be seen as right or wrong only within the context of a particular culture. If a culture legalizes abortion for the ultimate good of the culture then it is seen as morally acceptable to abort babies. It views are that whatever is legal is considered moral.
To critique this viewpoint one should point out that the fact that there is diversity between cultures does not eliminate objective truth. Simply observing a cultures normal practice in no way proves that the practice is moral. If this was the case then one could simply make a practice moral by legalizing it. Just because the High court of Australia makes the action of abortion legal does not automatically make abortion moral.
This type of flawed reasoning assumes that what ought to be is based on what is. For example, if a culture practices the torturing of women, then this action is assumed to be right because that is what is naturally happening in the culture.
In conclusion, moral relativism, whether subjective, conventional or cultural in perspective, makes many assumptions that are clearly faulty in nature. If relativism is flawed and incorrect, then it opens the door to objective morality.
Moral law judgements
Without a moral law judgements would be meaningless. For example, consider the statement, "torturing babies for fun is wrong" Is the person saying this only expressing their personal opinion, or are they claiming the behavior is really wrong? If there is no universal moral laws how can anyone judge an action as being wrong or right? Without a universal moral law, no one could claim any difference between the lives of Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. We could not express that it is true that terrorism, murder, rape, and slavery is wrong.
Moral disagreements would be senseless
The affirmation of moral law