Moral relativism

In philosophy, Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

History

Relativist positions have been recorded for several thousand years. Protagoras' (ca. 481-420 BC) assertion that "man is the measure of all things" is an early philosophical precursor to modern relativism. Greek historian Herodotus (circa 484-420 BC) observed that each society thinks its own belief system and way of doing things are best, in contrast to that of others. Various ancient philosophers also questioned the idea of an absolute standard of morality.

Related Topics:
Protagoras - 481 - 420 BC - Philosophical - Greek - Herodotus - 484 - Philosophers

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 18th century Enlightenment philosopher, David Hume (1711-1776), is in several important respects the father of both modern emotivism and moral relativism, though Hume himself was not a relativist. He distinguished between matters of fact and matters of value, and suggested that moral judgments consist of the latter, for they do not deal with verifiable facts that obtain in the world, but only with our sentiments and passions, though he argued that some of our sentiments are universal. He is famous for denying any objective standard for morality, and suggested that the universe is indifferent to our preferences and our troubles.

Related Topics:
Enlightenment - David Hume - Emotivism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the modern era, anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), cautioned observers not to use their own cultural standards to evaluate those they were studying, which is known as ethnocentricism. Benedict said there are no morals, only customs, and in comparing customs, the anthropologist, "insofar as he remains an anthropologist ... is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other." To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether there can be any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values. This caused some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist, Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) was among the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He contended that all moral ideas are subjective judgements that reflect one's upbringing. He rejected G.E. Moore's (1873-1958) intuitionism — in vogue during the early part of the 20th century, and which identified moral propositions as true or false, and known to us through a special faculty of intuition — due to the obvious differences in beliefs among societies, which he said was evidence that there is no innate, intuitive power.

Related Topics:
Anthropologists - Ruth Benedict - Ethnocentricism - Edward Westermarck - G.E. Moore - Intuitionism - Intuition

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~