Ethical Relativism Analysis

1083 Words5 Pages
My purpose in this essay is to explain and evaluate ethical relativism. Ethical relativism states that there are no moral absolutes, therefore, no moral right or wrong. While this theory does have many advantages to it, such that it can promote acceptance and equality, I have to disagree with this theory because it can result in more harm than good. I believe there has to be some moral truths in order for society to not become chaotic. Ethical relativism or also known as moral relativism denies that moral values and norms are objective or universal and declares that there is no absolute truth. The truth is relative to the subject and can differ from person to person and from society to society. Ethical relativism states that our morals and…show more content…
One weakness is that it fails to recognize that certain moral values are universal. Everyone is entitled to set their own moral code of conduct. This theory implies that we cannot condemn murder or rape and allows for no evaluation of terrible things due to another person’s belief. If a person’s morality defined actions such as rape and murder to be good, then they would be legally viable. Ethical relativism is also based on the idea that we are all perfect. Many people strive to do good every day, but we are not perfect. We get upset, forgetful, and even lie. Without a moral code in place, anything could happen when we come across these moments of imperfection. While ethical relativism states that it creates a lack of diversity, it actually may lead to the opposite. Relativism encourages an individualistic viewpoint so that the only morals and values in place are those set by the individual, which means that everyone is always seeking their own side. This can create a lack of diversity because the emphasis of society is on individualistic gain that can come at another’s expense. This certain argument is very interesting to me because it shows that of the strengths for ethical relativism is actually one of its weaknesses as…show more content…
While ethical relativism has its advantages because it could create a peaceful society, that is not always the case. Relativism does not accept that certain moral values are universal. Just because cultures differ, that does not mean there are no moral values and norms, like murder or child abuse. Determining what is morally right or wrong is an difficult thing, and each individual has a different belief about it. So, by allowing everyone to follow their own moral code, it could lead to chaotic society. If you are upset at someone, you can kill that person without any consequences because your moral code accepts murder. There is no real way to keep people safe in this type of society, and each person is responsible for protecting themselves. While ethical relativism can promote people coming together, it can also encourage people to stay away from one another. Because each person does not know what values and norms another person has, in order to keep oneself safe, it causes people to draw away from others. Another reason why I disagree with this theory is because it is self-contradictory by stating that two views can both be right. If it is true that nothing is right or wrong, then why believe this theory if there are no absolute truths? By stating that there are no objective truths, that is an objective
Open Document