Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism asserts that an individual's ethics are influenced by different cultures and norms to which he or she subscribes. Many psychologists believe in ethical relativism, claiming that people differ on moral matters from time to time and that morality concepts are therefore merely relative. The majority of proponents of the idea argue that the criteria for what is right and wrong are subjective. They argue that there is no such thing as objective ethical reality. Relativists believe that the ethical component of an event is the responsibility of the social moral order.
The Moral Differences Debate
Moral disagreements are common in the society today because they have been the basis of justification that ethical relativists use to claim that morality is relative. They argue that morality is merely an automatic reaction to a situation. People view the issues differently depending on the various factors such as backgrounds and beliefs. For example, one may posit that it is correct to live in a world where your beginning justifies the end while another person can disabuse the notion. In such a discussion, every human involved in the argument believes he or she is correct. But, usually, some individuals think that only one option is correct. However, relativists reject the perception thinking that moral differences can exist even if the opinions hold separate worldviews.
Objections
Objectivity and truth of the argument do not exist. For example, let’s imagine that people disagree about the birthday of President Donald Trump. By the fact that there are different arguments about the issue it does not mean that Trump was born on two separate dates. Therefore, why should not people apply the same in addressing morality? The differences in worldviews do not justify that an objective truth also does not exist.
In addition, differences in reasoning about the objectivity of ethical standards defend that morality objectivism is not correct; therefore, there is no truth in morality. Through the statement, the moral relativism apologists assert the notion that differences about a particular issue show that there is no correctness in the issue. The challenge of the reasoning already negates their position because there is no universal assertion about the truth of their idea. From their argument, people cannot believe their objective truth.
Another objection to the view is that personal differences are over-rated. Many cases of disagreements do not depict morality but also other factual issues. For example, many Indians avoid eating beef because their belief of reincarnation prevents them from doing so. They think and hold that cows contain the souls of dead people. In the United States, Americans do not have such a prejudice, therefore, they enjoy beef without any stress, but Americans do not feed on human flesh. It is clear that the U. S. citizens and Indians have different views on eating cow meat. The two societies, therefore, have essential moral differences from the onset. It is also true that the two cultures do not eat the human body because they both believe it is wrong to do so. Moreover, Indians may have a feeling that the cows may contain the human spirit, but the Americans do not believe the notion. As a result, it is indifference that divides people but not the moral standards.
Criticisms
The idea that the relativists require an accurate explanation of the moral truths is wrong because some practices are not relative. For example, where were the relativism and the correctness of the Holocaust war and the numerous injustices such as slavery in the United States? And again, what happens to an individual who challenges his societal beliefs? For example, some people are born Muslim but end up becoming Christians, why? What happens to an individual who comes from a country that legalizes abortion if he or she has a different opinion?
Relativists fail to understand that some moral truths do not have any grounds. For example, everybody accepts that it is wrong to torture kids for sexual pleasures. Objectivity limitations to ethics are too broad that there cannot be sufficient ways to establish a particular morality. The theory of relativism in morality is a radical idea. It deprives people of numerous ways of raising moral concerns against awful social practices such as human rights because it claims that morality is approved by the code of conduct of the communities in which they are practiced. For example, the terrorists do not think killing is wrong. Their ideology promotes mass murder. So will people agree that murder is possible as long as it is in the terrorism context?
Conclusion
Ethical relativism holds that morality depends on the context of its practice. However, the idea does not work in the context of injustices and immoral actions. The difference in arguments does not justify that there is no moral truth. Ethical relativism can be used to enhance awful acts in the society.
