PHILO-NOTES

Free Online Learning Materials

IPHP Ethics Logic Understanding the Self Practical Research 1 Practical Research 2

Other

Understanding the Self

M AY 1 5 , 20 22 B Y A DM I N

Ethical Relativism: Meaning and Types

E
thical relativism or moral relativism is the view that ethical or
moral values and beliefs are relative to the various individuals
or societies that hold them. Thus, according to the ethical or
moral relativists, there is no objective right and wrong. This means that
what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another or what
is right in some circumstances is not necessarily in another.

Two Forms of Ethical Relativism

There are two forms of ethical relativism, namely: 

Informal Fallacies

1) Personal or Individual Ethical Relativism and 

2) Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism.

On the one hand, personal or individual ethical relativism holds that

ethical judgments and beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook
and attitudes of individual persons. Hence, for the individual ethical
relativists, there is no objective standard of right and wrong inasmuch
as the “individual person” is the basis of moral judgments. The ethical
relativist may, therefore, say “I have my own view and you have yours.
Neither my view nor yours is better or more correct.”

Let us take, for example, senicide or geronticide, that is, the

abandonment to death or killing of the elderly. There was a common Ethics
belief that during famines or other extremely dif cult situations, the
Inuit or the indigenous people of Northern America would leave their
elderly on the ice to die. If this is indeed the case, the individual relativist
would say that no one, especially the outsiders of this culture, has the
right to say that the Inuit are wrong because the morality of such action
depends entirely on the individual Intuit beliefs. Hence, in individual
ethical relativism, any person has no right to say that others are correct
or incorrect since to do so would assume an objective standard of right
and wrong. As we can see, this example is considered an individual or
personal ethical relativism because it is the individual that is the basis
of moral judgment.

On the other hand, social or cultural ethical relativism holds that

ethical values and beliefs vary from society to society and that the Introduction to Philosophy
basis of moral judgment lies in these social or cultural views. Thus, in
determining the rightness or wrongness of human actions, one must
of the Human Person
base it on the norms of a particular society. Let us take, for example, the
ancient Indian practice of Sati or Suttee.

As is well known, the ancient Indians had the practice of burning the
wife alive in the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. Whatever the
reasons behind this practice, the act was seen as heroic. In fact, records
show that some wives willingly allowed themselves to be burnt alive on
their husbands’ funeral pyre. Indeed, if an outsider is to judge this act,
she may view this as immoral, especially if she is a Christian. But for the
social ethical relativist, that might be the right to do in that particular
culture. This is because, for the social ethical relativists, no society’s
view is better than any other in a trans-cultural sense.  Hence, no society
has the right to say that particular culture of a certain society is wrong.
Mathematics in the
From what we have just presented above, we can draw three possible Modern World
reasons that support ethical relativism.

First, on the diversity of moral values. The ethical relativists may have
argued that the presence of disagreements on many ethical issues or
even on basic moral values or principles will prove the point that we
cannot attain objective truth. Hence, the idea of objective right and
wrong is inconceivable for ethical relativists.

Second, on moral uncertainty. Because of moral uncertainty, the ethical

relativists would have argued that because there is great dif culty in
knowing what is the morally right thing to do or believe, then again, we
cannot attain objective right or wrong.

Third and last, on situational differences. For the ethical relativists, the
Propositional Logic
situations and life world of different people vary so much that it is
dif cult to believe that same things that would be right for one would
be right for another. Hence, what is right or wrong for one may not be
necessarily right or wrong for another.

ET HI CS

ET HI C A L R EL AT I V I S M , M O R A L R EL AT I V I S M

PREVI O US NEXT
Categorical Logic
Moral Standard versus Non-Moral Natural Law Ethics (St. Thomas
Standard Aquinas’s Christian Ethics)

How to Write a Thesis

Proposal

S EA RCH

Search …

A B O U T P H I LO - N O T E S

PHILO-notes provides free online learning

materials in philosophy, particularly in Introduction
to Philosophy of the Human Person (IPHP), Ethics,
Logic, Understanding the Self, and other sub-
branches in philosophy. PHILO-notes also provides
learning materials in social sciences, arts, and
research.

A B O U T P H I LO - N O T E S

PHILO-notes provides free online learning materials in philosophy, particularly in

Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person (IPHP), Ethics, Logic,
Understanding the Self, and other sub-branches in philosophy. PHILO-notes also
provides learning materials in social sciences, arts, and research.

S EA RCH

Search …

Proudly powered by WordPress