Relativism is the theory which stated that there are no absolute truths; truth is

relative to the subject and can vary from person to person and from society to
society. There are no universally valid moral principles and so there is no one true
morality. All principles and values are relative to a particular culture and age. Truth
is relative.

Absolutism is when things are right or wrong for every human being from an
objective point of view and cant change according to culture. Certain actions are
intrinsically right or wrong (right or wrong in themselves). Ethical norms exist
independent of human existence.

When you reached the end of the last post you may have already firmly decided
which theory you like best, or which you think works better. But did you really
consider them? Did you really consider the problems with them and the
consequences they have on human morality and behaviour? If not, then Ill do the
thinking for you now, but you still have to get your head around all the pros and
cons Im about to highlight. Hopefully then the cogs in your brain will begin to turn.

So, pull your socks up and lets first look at the strengths of relativism

Relativists believe in tolerance and respect for other peoples societies. Relativism is
the only practical moral philosophy for society today, since mass migration has
made a massive difference in societies. it rejects the idea that a groups moral
norms are superior to any other. This respect for diversity produces a peaceful and
harmonius society.
Relativism rejects moral imperialism (one culture/society forcing their superior
morals on another culture/society). Most of the 20th Century wars were fought for
ideological/cultural reasons. Relativism rejects the unique truthfulness of any
ideological position.
Language isnt neutral culture determines language. Words vary in their meaning
from society to society, language to language. Words like goodness or justice,
truth or freedom mean different things in different parts of the world and at
different times in history.
Truth lies in the ideas of the masses. Truth is with the crowd and error with the
individual Louis Pojman. The selfishness of the individual is weakened by the
needs of the group the views of the crowd filter out the selfishness of the
individual. However, groups may not always filter out personal prejudices; they
might amplify them. (I think we all know an example that refutes this strength; were
the Nazis morally right? Was that crowd doing the ethically right thing because they
all believed they were?)

With subjective relativism the individuals character determines their morals. Most
ethical theories ignore the personality of the individual. Subjective relativism puts
personality to centre stage. But again, this may be a strength or a weakness.
Now, for the weaknesses of relativism

Relativism fails to appreciate that certain moral values are universal. It implies that
there can be no real evaluation or criticism of practices such as murder. Just
because cultures differ, it doesnt mean theres no objective good. Every culture
has a concept of murder Clyde Kluckhohn
Relativism argues that the job of ethics is essentially descriptive (and not
prescriptive). If ethics just describes and analyses the customs of different societies
it wouldnt be possible to condemn corrupt or evil actions. Theres got to be a role in
ethics for moral judgements. This wouldnt be possible if the non-judgmental and
culturally-sensitive approach is followed.
Relativism views culture as the sole influence on human life and therefore on
morality. Moral problems are often complex and are determined by a variety of
issues. Relativists believe a multicultural society will be tolerant and morally good,
as people know more about each others cultures. However, this hasnt been the
case in human history, as there have been more than just cultural problems which
divide humans.
Relativism seems to give little reason for behaving morally except to be socially
acceptable.
What is the difference between social reform and moral imperialism? Cultural
relativists reject any interference by one culture in the morality of another, so would
the social reformer be seen as intolerant rather than being a courageous innovator?
Moral progress becomes ethical interference and this prevents human progress, so
a single societys culture becomes fixed in the past.
So, are the cogs turning yet? Can you hear the clanking of you brain kicking into
action? Theres a lot to think about and consider with regards relativism, so it might
help to stare at the wall for a few minutes and really work up a mental sweat, just to
get your head round all the pros and cons.
Youll be relieved to hear that the next section about absolutism is significantly
shorterPhew! I hear you say. Well, phew indeed.

Right then, lets steam ahead and get on with the strengths of absolutism

Morality isnt based on individual/group preferences, but rather on absolute and

universal values.

Absolutism allows different societies to share common values.

It gives authority to human rights legislation, which is designed to protect people.
It allows one society to evaluate the morality of another society; a society can judge
actions which are wrong and act on that judgement.
Absolutism provides a fixed ethical code which gives clear moral judgments in
situations where theres a need for ethical guidance.
And now for the weaknesses of absolutism

Absolutism doesnt take into account historical development. An absolutist theory

has no place for the evolutionary nature of humanity in general, and of moral
theories in particular.
It doesnt take into account cultural difference absolutists can seem intolerant of
cultural diversity.
It doesnt take into account individual lifestyles.
It doesnt consider the situation. Absolutism ignores the circumstances in which
ethical judgements are made.
How do we actually know what absolute morals are, as all sources of morality are
open to human interpretation?
There, I told you that section would be shorter, didnt I? Its all over now. You wont
have to hear about relativism or absolutism for a while now (maybe), so you can
put your feet up and relax. After this, of course

Food for thought:

Is relativism an impossible ethical system? Is it possible for there to be no moral

truths? If not, does the Declaration of Human Rights fail?
Can either ethical system be possible, just by itself?