Essay on Ethical Relativism as an Explanation of Human Morality

Introduction

Ethical Relativism is the representation that there are no moral absolutes, non-moral right or wrong. More precisely, ethical relativism is a theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of the attributed culture. It means that, whether an activity or action is right or wrong relies on the moral standards of the specific society that it is practices whereby, a similar action could be morally right in one community but be wrong in another society (Harman, 855-863). Often, ethical relativism has been associated with other claims concerning morality; different cultures exhibiting different moral norms; the objection that there are universal moral norms shared by each society; and there are no universal moral standards that can be universally applied to individuals regardless. However, I do not agree with ethical relativism as an adequate explanation of the paramount nature of human morality. If ethical relativism is correct, then there is an inadequacy a framework for resolving moral disputes or rather for reaching into an agreement on ethical matters among individuals in different societies. Majorly, I reject ethical relativism as an explanation to nature of human morality since while the moral actions and practices in different communities may have differences, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices and occurrence do not differ.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The assertion that universal moral standards can exist regardless of the occurrence that various moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures in my most persuasive argument against ethical relativism as an explanation of the nature of human morality. In multiple occurrences, we acknowledge the difference in terms of moral practices and beliefs in culture and still hold that some of the beliefs and practices could be morally wrong (Velleman). For instance, in occurrences such as the practice of slavery in the pre-Civil war in the United States society, such differences are evident. Moreover, ethics is an inquiry concerning what is morally right and wrong through an examination of the reasons behind the beliefs and practices. Thus, as a theory that justifies moral beliefs and practices, ethical relativism fails in recognizing that numerous societies have significant grounds for maintaining their views that other cultures.

There is no doubt that everyone is informed and aware of the social and cultural difference existing in the world. However, another primary argument as to why I do not accept ethical relativism as an adequate explanation of the essential nature of human morality is the occurrence that ethical relativism fails to consider the diversity in cultures realistically. Majorly, ethical relativism attempts to inform of the unreality of existing beliefs, morals, convictions of other, and unreality of preconceptions that they can be ignored which is not the case. Different cultures are diverse, which means that the superficial difference often masks the underlying arguments. It also derives an occurrence of inconsistency. In other words, one can obtain that various moral beliefs are culturally relative while others are not in that, in specific beliefs or practices, their customs that depend on the cultural orientation of the people. For example, some traditions concerning decent dressing may rely on local beliefs and practices while other practices such as political repressions are controlled by the universal moral standards and can be judged regardless of the cultural differences that may exist or surface. Simply because numerous actions, beliefs, and practice are relative, it does not mean that every practice relative thus, making it less significant to use ethical relativism as an explanation of essential nature of human morality.

Argumentatively, ethical relativism cannot be an explanation of human morality since it comprises a problem of infallibility. Within this, there could be a minimal tendency to equate the disbelief in righteousness in the involvement of ethical relativism; however, moral relativism claims that it is what culture or individual beliefs rather than claiming the nonexistence of morality. It means that it is morally infallible. Additionally, ethical relativism implicates personal moral convictions. In this assertion, it derives that the ability of action to be right or wrong depends on a society's practices, then it provides that an individual ought to obey the cultures of one's community and culture and divert from the norms in the specified culture is to act immorally. Through this, it means that if an individual is a member of a particular society that believes that racial actions or practice are morally correct, then one ought to accept the practice as of right. However, such practices are dangerous in the communities as a whole since individuals may hold varying views on certain practices. As a result, it is evident that ethical relativism is incapable of explaining the essential nature of human morality since it could render misunderstandings, which could further deteriorate the society as a whole along with inter-cultural relations.

Correspondingly, ethical relations could be centered on confusion between facts and opinions. According to moral relativism, they are likely to fall into the problems of attempting to create realities based on personal views. It means that it could render an individual into making a preference a fact depending on how they view it. However, a fact can be perceived in numerous ways, but at the end of the day, it remains a fact. Similarly, morality, regardless of how inconvenient is no exception to the existence of it as a fact. The contradictions formed by ethical relativism makes it challenging to understand the various basics defining human morality. On the other hand, ethical relativism inconsistently claims that there are no universal moral practices and norms while appealing to the principle of tolerance as a widespread practice and norm across cultures (Ferguson and Flynn, 163-175) thus a reason as to why I do not accept ethical relativism as an adequate explanation of essential nature of human morality.

Conclusion

In as much as there are disagreements concerning ethics, it does not mean that there are objective truths. Even though people disagree about various scientific issues such as causes of diseases and end up not concluding on the actuals causes, it does not mean there are no real causes. Similarly, as far as people might disagree about ethics, it could mean that some people are enlightened than others. To sum everything up, there is no legitimate way through which one can judge the society's practices, particularly from the outside. Ethical relativism can only be elaborated in an attempt to understand whether a particular cultural practice works to the preferences on the individuals within the culture. Additionally, without a setting or structure delivering on the existence of a non-relative standard to appeal to, then there is no basis for critical moral appraisal to individual culture conventions or for making the moral decisions terming on society as better than another. Thus, with such occurrence, it is evident that ethical relativism is inadequate, particularly in explaining the essential nature of human morality.

Works Cited

Ferguson, Eamonn, and Niall Flynn. "Moral relativism as a disconnect between behavioral and experienced warm glow." Journal of Economic Psychology 56 (2016): 163-175.

Harman, Gilbert. "Moral relativism is moral realism." Philosophical Studies 172.4 (2015): 855-863.

Velleman, J. David. Foundations for Moral Relativism: Second Expanded Edition. Open Book Publishers, 2015.