Moral Relativism
Paul L. Christensen
12/5/2011
In this paper I will discuss what moral relativism is and argue how it affects people as a
society. I argue if humanity accepts the idea of moral relativity, it will affect people in multiple
ways as a society. Discuss on how having so many different views of morality jeopardizes
humanities focus on how, as a society, we ought to act. Then, I explain how the individual views
of the world can be misguided, viewing wrong as right and vice-versa. Finally, I argue what a
relativist might say in objection to my claims.
Relativism is the belief that knowledge is determined by specific qualities of the
individual who is observing. “Most moral relativists say that moral right and wrong are to be
relativized to a community’s moral code” (Paul Boghossian, The Maze of Moral Relativism). Paul
Boghossian meant that in today’s society, some individuals see that eating meat is ok; while to
others it is an absolute disgrace to humanity and should not be allowed. Paul Boghossian gives
another great example of how society has displayed moral relativism.
If we are dining at Buckingham Palace, we ought not to slurp, since our
hosts would consider it offensive, and we ought not, other things being equal,
offend our hosts. On the other hand, if we are dining in Xian, China, we ought to
slurp, since in Xian slurping is considered to be a sign that we are enjoying our
meal, and our hosts would consider it offensive if we didn’t slurp, and we ought
not, other things being equal, offend our hosts (Paul Boghossian, The Maze of
Moral Relativism).
Paul Boghossian shows us that there are many different views of morals and each one is
relative to the culture and the observer. What may be right and proper in one cultures society
may be disrespectful and wrong in another.
Relativism towards morality has proven an
important role in our society derive our moralities on the way humanity ought to live. Society
would like to not accept the idea of moral relativism, because there would be no supreme
being to decree what is right and wrong.
Individuals who believe in moral relativism can harm the society of what it can be. As a
society many individuals would like to believe in their own “moral code” of how they should live
their life in society. This poses a problem to society stability, if the society believes in their
personal beliefs rather than as whole, nothing can be determined what is right and wrong. An
individual will have the moral code that taking another person’s life is morally acceptable. We
encounter the paradox of moral relativity; we cannot accept the idea of moral relativity and not
accept it. We cannot allow society to accept multiple forms of moral codes, yet restrict them
because another individual finds it unacceptable. Telling people that they are free to choose in
a moral code of their choosing, but tell that individual that it is against the law in accordance
with the society’s moral code. In politics, for what is best or right for that individual in power
will conflict in their decision on the way they should proceed instead of acting on if it is right for
the society. The person in power has his or her own “moral code” that they live by and their
view has been influenced by the culture they grew up in. This individual can pose his or her own
views on society changing what is right and wrong to their understanding of morality.
Accepting the idea of moral relativism would result society falling into a form of chaos.
Each individual doing as they see fit according their views on morality. Individuals would not
have a Supreme Being to guide them of what is right or wrong. Each person would have their
own individually personalized supreme being, but none are to be known the absolute truth.
Society has already seen the effects of accepting relativism through political acts. Hitler has
demonstrated that his moral code that only certain people were considered pure and they
were the only ones allowed the live while others deserved to die. Hitler was considered a
supreme being to most individuals in the society and believed his word as the truth, but Hitler’s
ideas of what the society of it ought to be was his own personal idea of moral relativism.
This thought of moral codes and moral relativism can potentially jeopardize our focus on
how, as a society, we ought to act. For example, the proper way for raising infants has been
proven over time for the basic needs for development. Accepting moral relativism on how we
raise our infants can potentially harm the way society develops in time. One individual may find
the way they raise the child is the proper way to care for them in accordance with the
individuals’ moral code. When their moral code actually goes against how the child should be
taken care of and its basic needs for proper and healthy development. If an individual believes
that their moral code is justified to their beliefs, they are misguided on what is right and wrong.
Without a supreme being to show society of what is right and wrong, individuals are clouded on
what is the correct path to choose.
On the other hand, a relativist would argue that accepting another individual’s belief
would go against their own moral code. An individual should be able to choose what he
believes in and not be condemned to belief in the morals of another individual or societies. A
relativist may argue that the Supreme Being on what is right and wrong cannot be true to
everyone. Claim that a single individual’s morality is true, instead of what is useful. “Even in the
same place and time, right and wrong are relative to the unique experiences and preferences of
the individual (Soccio pg. 73)”. Meaning that individuals are going to continuously encounter a
new experience in life and the moral code that they will respond with is not going to be the
same every time. Every situation is never going to be handled the same way twice and the claim
to ones standard is to an individual’s preference, not of what society tells the individual what
ought to do.
In this paper I discussed what moral relativism is and argue how it affects people as a
society. I argued if humanity accepts the idea of moral relativity, how it will affect people in
multiple ways as a society. Discussed on how having so many different views of morality
jeopardize humanities focus on how, as a society, we ought to act. Then, I explained how the
individual views of the world can be misguided, viewing wrong as right and vice-versa. Finally, I
argued what a relativist might say in objection to my claims.