Category: Relativism

Last week I met some friends, and in our conversation, the issue of gambling came up, and five individuals in a group of seven argued that this practice is immoral. I could not understand why such an issue could be controversial, but I quickly realized that all those against gambling were international students from China, and this practice is outlawed in their country. I write this paper to justify gambling through the lenses of moral relativism.

There is no universal set of moral principles that can be applied uniformly on different issues across cultures. Every culture has its own sets of beliefs that inform decisions made concerning various life matters in what Green calls to each her own (344). In other words, nobody has the moral high ground to judge another. Therefore, in the case of gambling, people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it does not cause harm to other individuals.

Gambling is a personal matter, and it should be treated as such without infringing on peoples freedom of choice. If I am opposed to the practice, perhaps because I have studied the detrimental aspects associated with it, the best that I can do is to present that information to gamblers and hope that they can see the negative aspects of what they are doing.

However, beyond educating gamblers, only those who are willing to listen, I cannot force my ideologies on them because, under moral relativism, the moral code of a society is a function of what people deem as acceptable or unacceptable. Personally, I am not a gambler, and I actually do not support it, but my philosophical approach towards life and morality is based on moral relativism. I would be ignorant if not arrogant if I attempted to judge the conduct of other people using my ethical standards because my code of ethics is not better than that of other individuals or societies.

My stand on the issue of gambling could be challenged from different perspectives. A critic of my views could argue that the available data in the literature and evidence-based studies show that the practice is associated with numerous negative aspects. For example, Heiskanen argues that gambling may lead to addiction, substance abuse, financial problems, family breakdown, and other indecorous behaviors, such as crime (364-366).

However, in my rebuttal, I would argue that the issue being contested is not whether gambling is good or not, but how people should be allowed to lead their lives. Using evidence-based data to deny people their capacity and the right to choose is immoral in itself. The problem here is not a medical one, but a philosophical and backed with the principles of moral relativism; people should be allowed to choose between what is moral or immoral according to their beliefs.

In conclusion, the issue of gambling raises many questions, especially from a philosophical point of view. Someone may wonder why authorities should allow such perceivably immoral practice to thrive in society without setting laws to outlaw it. However, from a moral relativism perspective, there is no universal truth in ethics, and thus what is moral or immoral will differ from one culture or society to another based on the underlying beliefs. While gambling is illegal in China because it is viewed as bad, it is permissible in the US and most other countries.

Works Cited

Heiskanen, Maria. Is It All About Money? A Qualitative Analysis of Problem Gamblers Conceptualizations of Money. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, vol. 34, no. 5, 2017, pp. 362-374.

Green, Michael. What is Moral Relativism. Philosophy, vol. 93, no. 3, 2018, pp. 337-354.

Norms, values, and behaviors of different cultures can often contradict each other. Therefore, an international company and its employees can be torn between the ethical principles of the host country, where they meet a completely different set of moral values. However, proponents of cultural universalism believe humanity lives in a civilization based on universal values ignoring cultural diversity. The grounds for such claims are to be evaluated in this paper.

First, all people are the representatives of the human race: they have a uniform psyche and the same biological needs (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). Second, they all solve similar life problems and possess cultural universals. They are understood as features, norms, values, and rules inherent in all cultures, regardless of geographical location, historical time, and social structure of society. On the contrary, relativism presupposes the denial of an ethnocentric position, going beyond the limits of ones values, and trying to sympathize and understand another culture.

Recognition of relativism ideas requires the manifestation of tolerance, respect for the individual, his culture, customs, and traditions (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). Multinational corporations in other countries often adhere to local laws contrary to their ethical standards (Doh et al., 2016). For example, based on relativists philosophy, an international corporation could justify slave labor in gold and diamond mining in African regions.

Each of the approaches described has advantages and disadvantages. The positive side of cultural universalism is the desire to unite different people based on shared values. The virtues of cultural relativism lie in a respectful and careful attitude towards all cultures. A comprehensive understanding of the relationship in global corporate culture is only possible when the merits of cultural relativism and universalism are combined.

References

Szkudlarek, B., Romani, L., Caprar, D. V., & Osland, J. S. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of contemporary cross-cultural management. SAGE.

Doh, J., Husted, B. W., & Yang, X. (2016). Guest editors introduction: Ethics, corporate social responsibility, and developing country multinationals. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(3), 301-315. Web.

The philosopher Allan Bloom once lamented: ‘There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.’ Perhaps Bloom overstated his case, but as a university teacher myself, I think he’s onto something.

Do people who proclaim that ‘truth is relative’ or that ‘everyone has their own truth’ really believe this? Even Bloom adds the caveat: ‘…or says he believes’. As anyone with two neurons to rub together can see, the thesis is self-defeating. If it’s ‘true’ that truth is relative, then the assertion itself is also relative and cancels itself out. Relativism about what is morally right and wrong less obviously defeats itself, since it is not entirely clear if the claim that “moral standards are relative” is itself a moral claim. But in practice, moral relativism is an equally self-defeating position. For instance, moral relativists will typically condemn the belief in universal moral standards as a form of ‘cultural imperialism’, the implicit assumption being that cultural imperialism is bad. But if moral standards are relative, then so is the claim that cultural imperialism is reprehensible. In any rational discussion, relativism is the intellectual equivalent of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’, the deterrent used by nuclear superpowers during the Cold War. Pressing the red button will destroy your enemy, but ensure your own destruction as well.

Perhaps a relativist may simply shrug at such logical niceties and happily continue to advocate for relativism, like the Dude in The Big Lebowski: ‘Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man’. However, even the staunchest relativist doesn’t really swallow his own medicine. Try gratuitously accusing such a person of being a child molester, and they will indignantly protest their innocence. Not as a matter of subjective opinion, as one perspective among other equally valid ones, but as a hard and objective truth. Postmodernists may proclaim that ‘truth’ is a product of power structures and that modern science is just a ‘narrative’ of white European males, but those radical views are thrown out the window when they go to get cancer treatment, or when they board a plane to travel to postmodernist conferences. As Richard Dawkins once said: ‘Nobody is a social constructionist at 30,000 feet.’

It’s the same with moral relativism. People may pretend that judging other cultures is a form of imperialism, and some are disturbingly mealy-mouthed about horrible practices such as genital mutilation or child marriage. But if we were to discover a tribe that, say, willfully tortures innocent children – or any other sufficiently extreme example – they would be equally outraged, and would balk at the notion that the immorality of such practices only exists in the eye of the beholder.

It’s reassuring to know that relativists are not as foolish as they sound. But that doesn’t mean relativism is harmless. Even just pretending that there are no universal standards of right and wrong has pernicious effects. The real purpose of going relativist is always self-serving and opportunistic: to evade criticism and accountability. It’s not so much a sincere belief as a convenient trump card to play whenever it suits you, and then to discreetly tuck away when no longer needed. The philosopher David Stove called it the Ishmael Effect, named after the narrator from Moby Dick. At the end of Melville’s novel, the ship sinks and everyone drowns, except for the narrator of the book: ‘I only am escaped alone to tell thee’. Like Ishmael, the relativist exempts himself from the fate to which he condemns everyone else.

The trouble is that, even though self-serving and self-defeating, there is something about relativism that sounds good. In everyday life we are all familiar with situations in which different people have different perspectives on an issue, and there’s no objective fact of the matter about who’s right. Moreover, criticizing someone can feel as if you’re imposing your beliefs on others, thus infringing on their freedom. Conversely, moral relativism, if you don’t think about it too hard, appears commendably tolerant, humble and self-effacing. And indeed, it’s true that we shouldn’t be too quick to condemn seemingly abhorrent cultural practices if we only have a superficial understanding of their rationale and history. Being overly judgemental can be annoying, as we know from Jesus’s parable about the woman who’s about to get stoned by a mob. If you argue that someone is objectively in the wrong, you sound like one of those sinners who are eager to cast the first stone.

But despite claims to the contrary, sometimes people are objectively wrong, and it’s pernicious to pretend otherwise. In his splendid new book Mental Immunity, the philosopher Andy Norman writes that bad ideas can be regarded as mind parasites, and proposes strategies to inoculate our minds against them. Just like biological parasites can invade our bodies and make us sick, mind parasites can infect our minds and make us stupid. From that immunological perspective, relativism is a major disruptor of our mental immune system. Objective standards of right and wrong are our main defences against bad ideas. If we lose those standards, then anything goes. By disabling our natural immunity, relativism makes us vulnerable to a whole host of bad ideas and prevents us from picking up good ones. It is also corrosive to our social norms, because it undermines the very notion that we are accountable for our beliefs and behaviours, and that we need to be able to justify them if challenged.

In that sense, relativism is not just some bad idea, but the mother lode of bad ideas. It’s about time we stamp it out.

Harry Gensler, a professor of philosophy at the University of Scranton, compares and analyses theories of cultural relativism and subjectivism. Gensler analyses the problems that arise from cultural relativism and subjectivism. What a leader believes from a moral and ethical point of view is often influenced by what the leader has been told to grow up with. Each person has a set of morals that they learned at some point in their life. Gensler argues that cultural relativism and subjectivism are neither useful in situations such as racism, global warming, and teaching morality to children. Whereas, he uses these situations to prove his argument and the problems with Ima’s point of view. He states that cultural relativism leads to forced conformity, questionable results about racism, GW, and moral education, and denies the freedom to form one’s own moral beliefs. Furthermore, he argues that subjectivism even though it allows for moral freedom, it communicates a negative result about topics similar to racism and global warming.

Gensler outlines the main problems that arise from cultural relativism throughout the first chapter of his book. He states that CR forces conformity, leads to questionable results when applied to racism, global warming, and moral education, and CR also denies the freedom to form our own moral beliefs. Cultural relativism states that what is “good” is “socially approved” by an individual’s society/culture (Gensler, 2017. P8). Gensler analyses Ima’s views on cultural relativism and divides them into three different arguments and analyses these arguments through premises. These arguments highlight the problems as Gensler breaks down Ima’s premises. The first argument argues that cultures can differ radically on moral issues, Gensler formulates two premises from this. Premise one “No idea on which there is wide disagreement is objectively true” and premise two “all moral beliefs are ideas on which there is wide disagreement” with the conclusion that therefore “no moral beliefs are objectively true” (Gensler, 2017. P12). Furthering on, his analysis on Ima’s argument illustrates that while some moral beliefs have vast disagreements majority have global agreements (Gensler, 2017. P12). This analysis presents that when applying the view of morality to issues such as racism cultural relativism fails to satisfy the views on how to attack racist actions (Gensler, 2017. P10). When applying cultural relativism to another issue such as global warming two views are created. The first view is on climate change affirmers believing that the “earth is rapidly warming” and that this is a result of human activity. The second view on climate change deniers believes that human activity is not a significant cause for recent temperature rises. These views contradict one another and create a standpoint for different societies and cultures to only believe in one view or the other. The Harvard Law Review (Kronman, 1998. P9) outlines the reasons for morality behind cultures and moral thinking. This review states that a good upbringing is dependent on a way of life that many individuals shares.

Gensler outlines the main problems that arise from subjectivism throughout the first part of chapter two. Subjectivism allows for moral freedom, but through Gensler’s analysis of Ima’s point of view, it states that subjectivism comes from an individual’s opinion. Meaning what is said to be “good” is what that individual likes (Gensler, 2017. P.23). About racism, global warming, and teaching morality to children, subjective relativism fails to be used within these situations. In the context of racism if subjectivism is used, for example, “if I like hurting people, then hurting people such people is good” (Gensler, 2017. P.25). This contradicts moral values as hurting people is morally wrong. Another problem is global warming when applying subjectivism to this issue it can make individuals think ignorant and confusing. For example, a specific policy about the environment is likable thereby it is a good policy, making the thinking confusing, selfish, and ignorant, therefore according to Gensler subjectivism thinking “could be very harmful to the planet and future generations” (Gensler, 2017. P.25). The third issue of teaching morality to children when applying subjectivism fails as it teaches teachers to teach students to follow their feelings and believe that their likes and dislikes are good and bad (Gensler, 2017. P.25). Even though subjectivism allows for moral freedom, it diminishes logically thinking towards issues of racism, global warming and also teaching morality to students.

I am agreeing with Gensler’s beliefs and views towards cultural and subjective relativism, mainly in regard to his argument against Ima’s point of view of cultural relativism and how it leads to conformity within society. Gensler believes that Ima’s sense of basic morality is wrong as cultural relativism forces individuals to “conform to society’s norms or – or else we contradict ourselves” (Gensler, 2017. P10). Conforming to society’s norms is an issue and something that has tried to be avoided in this 21st postmodern society. Conformity allows for leaders to take charge and boss individuals around, even though some believe that by conforming they will fit in, other believes that conformity can destroy individualism. Moral philosophy is “often the only way a person can clearly comprehend the material and social circumstances required for a successful moral education in his or her community” (Kronman, 1998). This means that it isn’t until an individual appreciates their culture they can then come to terms with the moral values that the culture upholds.

Gensler argues that cultural relativism wants us to conform to our society’s norms as if something is “good” it is “socially approved” which is contradictory (Gensler, 2017. P.10). Gensler states that “the central virtue of the moral life is conformity (being a follower instead of an independent thinker); good actions are the ones that are socially approved. This philosophical way of thinking could “stagnate society and violate the critical spirit that characterizes philosophy” (Gensler, 2017. P10). Gensler argues throughout his first two chapters about the importance of moral freedom and how moral truths are relative to the individual. These arguments allow for a better understanding of his point of view and why he is against Ima’s view of thinking.

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) argued that the superior principle of morality is a standard of judiciousness that he believed in the “categorical imperative” (CI). Kant typified the CI as a necessity that must be followed despite any natural desires an individual may have (Johnson, 2004). Johnson goes into a discussion on Kant’s categorical imperative view on moral judgments. Johnson states that “on the surface moral judgments can look as if they describe a moral world”. This is imperative as through thinking morally without applying subjectivism and cultural relativism, a moral world can be created. Kant illustrates that moral judgments lack objectivity, as well as Gensler as he states that “objectivity is an illusion that comes from objectifying our subjective reactions”, which means that our moral judgment cannot be objectified Kant and Gensler agree to this viewpoint. Richard Mervyn Hare, another philosopher, explored the way of moral thinking and the distinction between ‘critical’ thinking, the golden rule, and an intuitive level (Price, 2014). Hare divided these two levels of thinking that define “not two social castes but two roles between which each of us learns to alternate as appropriate” (Price, 2014). This definition of these two ways of thinking allows individuals to communicate and compare what is right and what is wrong instead of conforming to society’s norms.

Harry Gensler analyzed and thoroughly discussed Ima’s point of view of cultural relativism and subjectivism within today’s society. Due to his analysis, the conclusion came to the judgment that CR and subjectivity fail to comprehend logically thinking within certain situations. These situations include racism, global warming, and teaching morality to children. Gensler argued agreeable points when saying that CR forces conformity when thinking morally.

There is a lot of controversies when it comes to ethics and what is morally right and wrong. So, over the years many people have tried to create theories in order to bring some clarity but I feel this has only bought on more complications and disputes. In this essay I will be discussing the theory of relativism, this theory is subjective. On the contrary ethical objectivism is the view that some moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true (Shafer-Landau, 294). The theory of relativism means that the truth is autonomous to the view of each person which is conflicting and contradictory. Approaching any ethical theory using relativism is a recipe for disaster, essentially both parties will go into the issue being technically right, therefore, there would be no resolve. I will exhibit that relativism is ludicrous and should not be considered as a viable theory considering it eradicates the concept of right and wrong. All things considered we can still have a judgment on what is morally right as regards to gay-marriage which I will dispute in this essay as I feel that it is against nature to be gay and allowing gay marriage only promoting and normalizes it but morally a person should be allowed to do as they wish as long as it is not hurting anyone.

Moral relativism is that each person’s truth is right relative to the perception of them, that everyone’s opinion holds the same value despite a person’s age, knowledge or history so you could have a ten-year-old and a fifty-year-old and according to the law of relativism both their opinions on a given subject are equal. Therefore, everyone’s truth may be different but all those truths are right. Some popular relativism expressions such as “What’s appropriate for may not be what’s ideal for me”, and “The standards that are appropriate for some people may not be appropriate for others” (Shafer-Landau, n.d.) Or “each to their own”, all these expressions advocate for moral relativism. That one person’s views are no better or worse than another’s or that a person’s way of life is only right as it is right to them.

Relativism is subjective which means that truth is determined based on the individual beliefs of a person. True, right, and good are all respectful of each person’s perspective and ethics is the study of these things so essentially everyone is right all the time as we all can have our own correct perspective consequently there is no use of facts, evidence, reason, experience or logic.

At the other end of the spectrum is moral absolutism which is objective and believes that no matter the situation that there are certain things that are morally right or wrong furthermore believes that these rules are set in stone and that everyone should follow these laws. Despite a person’s background, culture or society these moral or immoral actions must be adhered to. This can cause a lot of disagreements as not everyone is going to agree on these moral truths because most moral values will vary depending on religion, country, culture, and even knowledge. This clash of moral right and wrongs can cause absolutism to fail so people then tend the fall straight to relativism rather than finding a middle ground. An example of a moral truth that could be universally agreed upon is “treat people how you wish to be treated” but within this expression, a different religion or culture will have a different view on how people should be treated which could create a contradiction. Absolutism is the opposite to relativism as absolutism advocates moral right and wrongs for all whereas relativism denies this theory and holds the value that we all have our own perspectives and they are right. Relativism can be true and relative is some instances for example things like taste, an opinion of whether something tastes nice or not is objective as one thing can be nice to some and not nice to someone else. Another example could be beauty, a common saying is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” this is true whether its regarding a person or an object, people see beauty in different ways making it relativistic.

One of the main criticisms of relativism is moral infallibility, this means that by the laws of relativism everyone is right and you can not make a moral mistake, therefore, killing to a relativist is not morally wrong in fact it would be right as you can’t make a moral mistake. Moral infallibility makes every individual person the judge of moral matters (Belvedere, Berny) so if morality is in the eye or the beholder then everyone is seeing things equally (Shafer-Landau, 298). According to relativism the act of murder, rape, slavery, and racism are all right as you can do nothing wrong.

Another big criticism is moral equivalence, the belief that everyone’s basic moral views are as plausible as everyone else’s. (Shafer-Landau, 299). This makes no sense to me, no matter a person’s educational background or knowledge of a given subject or age, a person who has no understanding or previous involvement in this subject has the same value of opinion as the person who has studied or lived a life of experiences. As well as opinions on subjects, actions are also seen as equal for example if ethical subjectivism is correct then the moral outlooks of Hitler and Stalin are just as plausible as those of a Noble Peace laureate (Shafer-Landau, 299). As you can see this is crazy and nonsensical and should not even be considered a feasible moral theory to evaluate moral issues.

Finally, the problem with contradiction (Shafer-Landau,301). When approaching a problem both parties would be right about any view they have thus making the other person have to agree that a person with an opposite view is right. Therefore, making relativism a contradiction as both sides of an ethical issue can not both be right, this is why relativism is a ridiculous theory and it will never solve any ethical problem as everyone will be right.

As a moral argument, I will be talking about is gay-marriage, gay-marriage was legalized in all fifty states on June 26, 2015 (Wikipedia). I think morally this is a hard issue to deal with as this issue isn’t hurting anyone but then again, they cannot naturally procreate which I believe is one of our main purposes of living. So, is same-sex marriages right or wrong? I believe it is wrong like I said same-sex couples could not reproduce meaning they would have to adopt and once gay marriage has been legalized there was an increase in the number of same-sex couples, in 2014 there was 183,280, and rose roughly 40% in 2015 to 250,450 according to same-sex married tax filers after Windsor and Obergefell (Robin Fisher). If there was to be a consistent increase then there would be more and more same-sex couples and less reproduction. Also, traditionally children need to be raised by both a mother and father, girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy (Bruce J. Ellis), this is just one of many issues that comes with being without both parents. This is an issue that could be avoided by not legalizing gay marriages also it can lead to what they call a “slippery slope,” where people will start to favor other nontraditional relationships such as polyamorous relationships the right to marry, and ruining the tradition of marriage. Gay marriage is also against the word of god in many religions as stated in the bible in Leviticus 18:22, ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination,'(Leviticus). These is the words from ancient texts and now we are choosing to go against what is right and natural, you cannot dispute what is natural and therefore gay marriages should not be legalized.

This essay critically engages with and moves toward reconceptualizing the concept of cultural relativism. In ongoing public policy and academic debates, cultural relativism has become a nuanced idea generating diverse perspectives from various segments of the political continuum. Indeed, through its proliferation in international relations dialogue, it has become a concept that is difficult, if not impossible, to apply in contemporary human rights issues. What is often negated in understanding cultural relativism’s normative underpinnings is the decolonization phenomenon.

Although cultural relativism prior to the mid‐1950s was a construct employed by both Western anthropologists and indigenous peoples to resist European initiatives for cultural hegemony, since decolonization, the concept has been appropriated by third-world bourgeois‐nationalist elites to undermine pre‐colonial rights of members of various non‐Western communities. Using the case study of homophobia in Zimbabwe, I investigate how political elites of postcolonial states are exploiting the constructive ethos of cultural relativism to persecute individuals who fall outside the socioreligious purview of “compulsory heterosexuality.” This article concludes by imploring for a critical negotiation of cultural relativism so that it transcends its current enabling relationship with oppression and once again returns to embodying a strategy for resistance to oppression, hegemony, and social injustice.

Posited at the crux of cross‐cultural feminist and international relations discourse is the question of cultural relativism. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, debates over cultural relativism have predominantly bifurcated scholars, practitioners, and policymakers into dichotomous schools of thought. Opponents of the concept, normally labeled universalists, unequivocally reject relativism and caution for its application in the construction of international norms and doctrines that endeavor to define categorical human rights. Universalists aver that there are inalienable rights affixed to every individual under all circumstances. Alternatively, there are those who espouse cultural relativism as being paramount to establishing optimal relationships among peoples and states that maintain dissimilar social creeds. Relativists assert that differences exist endemically between cultures and should be respected.

This essay amplifies the necessity of rethinking the traditional interpretation of cultural relativism. I argue that cultural relativism as a concept has been problematized by a series of postcolonial events. Unfortunately, its orthodox definition has remained unyielding. When the term first gained prominence in critical intellectual circles during the latter part of the colonial period, it was a term that embodied resistance to Western domination, and its primary agents—that is, anthropologists—acted as the medium through which indigenous narratives could be transmitted across cultures with the least risk of voice appropriation. Following the decolonization project, however, cultural relativism was utilized for purposes beyond its initial mandate. Those, then, have significant implications on a wide range of social justice concerns. This article explores some of the implications of cultural relativism through an engagement of contemporary sexual politics in a particular postcolonial state.

First, I describe how cultural relativism was conceived during Western imperialism. Here anthropologists’ significant contributions to the development of the term are underscored. Then, I use a case study of homophobia in Zimbabwe to illustrate how cultural relativism has recently been employed by bourgeois‐nationalist elites as a means to sustain their privileged social positions. In sum, this analysis revisits the disputatious concept of cultural relativism and argues for defining the term within a critical framework that holistically considers questions of power and praxis.

Extending from the scholarly developments of Franz Boas and his graduate students at Columbia University in the in late nineteenth‐ and early twentieth centuries, cultural relativism has gained currency as both a principle for academic field research and as the cornerstone of various social ideologies. Boas, alongside Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and other anthropologists, assisted in the cultivation of relativism’s mainstream understanding, which asserts that all truths are subject to the norms and expectations of a specific culture and that neither liberties nor value claims should be considered to be fundamentally inherent to human nature. As Melville Herskovits puts it, “judgments are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his [or her] own enculturation.” When applied, this can certainly be a provocative assertion in debates over cultural domination and cultural superiority. Accordingly, the virtues of cultural relativism become especially salient when studying colonization.

As recognized by feminist postcolonial theorist, Gayatri Spivak, colonization was dedicated to the shifting of parochial norms through which gender and racial paradigms were redefined so to make it coherent with the colonizer’s ideology. Hence, colonization’s social corollary was “interested in the seemingly permanent operation of altered normality.” Anthropologists who adhered to the ethos of cultural relativism, therein, became crucial mechanisms through which subaltern classes of this “altered normality”—or more simply, the victims of Western imperialism—could exercise limited agency and at least attempt to represent themselves in the discursive cultural dialogue transpiring within the realm of liminality; namely, the social interstices where negotiations between and among cultures manifest.

Perhaps more importantly, anthropologists have invoked the concept of cultural relativism to deconstruct myths of racial and cultural superiority. Resisting the axiological project that labels the West as a norm and the Other as deviant, relativists conceived of cultures as being part of a greater global paradigm that cannot be ordered in any sort of hierarchy, but merely juxtaposed by their similarities and differences with one another. Thus, according to them, no culture should be considered better or worst than another; rather it should be understood that they each have their unique identity and that they should be equally acknowledged for their self‐worth.

Some of the best examples of cultural relativism appear in the works of Boas. While completing field research among the Central Eskimos and the Kwakiutl Aboriginal community of northern Vancouver, Boas developed some key philosophies for the social sciences. In his 1911 groundbreaking book, The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas discredits theories of racial superiority laid down by his predecessors arguing that racial—and phenotype—factors do not a priori determine the values of any society. Instead, he advocated for understanding cultures through a critical engagement with their history.

Boas was instrumental in humanizing those individuals who differed in creed with Westerners. Progressive in ideology and holding the belief that intellectual freedom advances democracy, Boas intricately carved the original perspective of cultural relativism, a perspective that was initially condemned by his colleagues, yet, has since become the cornerstone for ethnographic research. Anthropologists have indeed been crucial actors in generating cross‐cultural understanding. To fully appreciate anthropologists’ contribution to relativism, it is useful to incorporate the writing of critical theorist Homi Bhabha into this discussion.

In his seminal postcolonial text, The Location of Culture, Bhabha argues that it is at sites of liminality that cultural value is negotiated. Anthropologists have been situated in these discursive liminal spaces and, in many cases, have employed their academic authority to serve as the voice of groups who they dedicate their careers to studying and who have usually been silenced in the hegemonic discourses of international affairs. That is, they have, for over a century, functioned as the mediator between the Western world and those groups that do not possess a significant presence within the global community.

As we entered the twenty‐first century, it became unequivocally clear that cultural relativism was no longer a construct to be exclusively applied as a way to comprehend human differences across global cultures. Instead, cultural relativism became a weapon in the arsenal of bourgeois‐nationalist elites that could be invoked in an effort to undercut the voice‐consciousness and degenerate the lived experiences of the masses residing in postcolonial states. This section uses the question of homosexuality in Zimbabwe as a case study to scrutinize how relativism has been usurped and misapplied.

Anne Norton, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, provides an excellent examination of the non‐Western world’s response to imperialism in the era of post‐coloniality. According to Norton, “the postcolonial order, which denies postcolonial significance on the world scene, impels [postcolonial citizens] to make themselves visible, make themselves seen. Once the object of the empire’s voyeuristic monopoly, they make themselves actors on the global stage.” In their desperate attempts to be seen, postcolonial states seek to discursively construct identities that are antithetical to those embodied by the West. Because their European imperialists defined their previous identity, often what manifests is a superficial polarization of indigenous normative traditions to those values associated with the modern West. The identity captured here is articulated by the notion that, “we are Us because we are not Them.”

A crucial issue that falls at the core of the cultural identity formation of postcolonial states and its constituents is the question of homosexuality. Since the mid‐1950s, postcolonial states governed by heteropatriarchal and often misogynistic institutions and leaders have consciously distanced themselves from anything perceived as being effeminate. At the most rudimentary level, this includes homosexual practices as such relationships connote, among other things, some males in the role of the passive sexual recipient. Added to this dimension of homophobia is the prevalent accusation that the homosexual lifestyle is an import of the “perverse, decadent” West, according to Saskia E. Wieringa. Even the great postcolonial thinker, Frantz Fanon, emphatically supported this fallacious claim.

To avoid ardent international pressures or military intervention on grounds of a humanitarian crisis, ideological‐wielding elites in various postcolonial states have veiled their persecution of members of the homosexual community by situating their actions under the purview of cultural relativism. They attest that same‐sex relations were non‐existent prior to Western intervention and that it was the West who corrupted the indigenous (hetero‐)sexual paradigm through their introduction of deviant practices. They further rationalize that by carrying out a systematic attack against homosexuals, postcolonial states are merely protecting values inherent to their pre‐colonial creed. According to this group, the marginalization or elimination of a large segment of the population should be interpreted through the lens of relativism, which would authorize such actions.

In his speech delivered on August 1, 1995, at the International Book Festival in Harare, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe targeted the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) in his remark: “I find it extremely outrageous and repugnant to my human conscience that such immoral and repulsive organizations, like those of homosexuals who offend both against the law of nature and the morals of religious beliefs espoused by our society, should have any advocates in our midst.” Mugabe’s suggestion that homosexuality is inconsistent with the model of sexual relations of pre‐colonial Zimbabwean culture is simply erroneous. Historian and former professor at the University of Zimbabwe, Marc Epprecht, argues that same‐sex relations existed in pre‐colonial and postcolonial Zimbabwe, however, social acceptance of homosexual acts in the latter have been closeted due to fears of cultural, political, and at times legal threats to personal security. Moreover, in her analysis of lesbianism, Kathryn Kendall has put forth the provocative thesis claim that “love between women is as native to southern Africa as the soil itself … homophobia, like Mugabe’s Christianity, is a Western import.”

Epprecht and Kendall, among others, have debunked the myth that pre‐colonial Zimbabwe only practiced heterosexual bonding. In fact, there is much evidence to indicate that citizens of southern Africa used same‐sex relationships to exercise social agency, according to Epprecht and Gay, for example. This has led Epprecht to conclude that “the harsh homophobia African leaders have voiced in recent years does not reflect traditional cultures of discretion and tolerance. “To the contrary, it mirrors the Western colonizer’s ideological subscription to “compulsory heterosexuality,” according to Adrienne Rich. Hence, Mugabe’s campaign against homosexuals, which includes tangible physical and social violence, should not be viewed as a way of genuinely preserving the pre‐colonial past but, more aptly, as an example of the sadistic means that may be utilized by unscrupulous leaders to attain specious political ends. Under this scenario, relativism should not be justification for the international community to remain acquiescent to Mugabe’s atrocities against non‐heterosexual constituents.

Unfortunately, Zimbabwe is not the only country that actively persecutes members of sexual minority communities. The Bharatiya Janata Party of India, Mahathir Mohammed in Malaysia, and leaders of almost every other postcolonial state in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the South Pacific have unleashed vehement campaigns against those who partake in same‐sex relations. The third world has become a haven for homophobia. For postcolonial citizens to move beyond the psychology and the political environment of discrimination against sexual minorities, they must first discern their history of colonization and contemplate the socioreligious construction of compulsory heterosexuality as it was enacted during the Western occupation.

Currently, bourgeois‐nationalists are using relativism to suspend productive cross‐cultural dialogue and curtail humanitarian intervention. Their accusation that Western imperialism engendered many negative repercussions is undeniably true and must be substantively addressed. In the same vein, however, these elites claim that their interpretation of the region’s ethnohistory is supreme and that no alternative explanation is valid. Postcolonial leaders take a structuralist approach to understand their past, thereby inscribing totalizing narratives that much too often conjure values that are contradictory of the social mores of pre‐colonial indigenous society. Homosexuals and others who are not captured within such ahistorical projects of cultural retrieval are relegated to the outer margins of society, demonized, and further persecuted.

Many leaders of postcolonial states have intricately defined an excessively anti‐Western dogma by attempting to locate their respective, uncontaminated precolonial past. Bhabha argues that by delving into one’s own history to discern past values upon which the current ideology is intended to be based not only negates hybridity by succumbing to the nostalgic and essentialist notion of static culture, but it also creates the mimicry complex. Mimicry discursively induces anti‐Western leaders to cultivate and implement public policy that paradoxically reflects the hegemonic Westocentre. Rather ironically, many postcolonial states have an ideology that more reflects Western norms than those of the pre‐colonial period.

In reflexively practicing mimicry, tyrannical, conservative leaders come to attribute the existence of sexual minority communities to the colonial experience and label it the white man’s disease. Coupled with this idea is the notion that non‐heterosexual practices did not exist in pre‐colonial territories. Although there is little evidence, if any, to support such a claim, bourgeois‐nationalist elites have usurped the conventional meaning of cultural relativism to legitimize their persecutions of homosexuals and uphold hetero‐patriarchal values.

Colonization, and globalization thereafter, has infused traditions of one culture into another to thereby engender the elimination of any uncontaminated parochial identity. Still, however, some scholars, like Ngugi was Thiong’o, have examined the pejorative impacts of (neo)imperialism and have obstinately rendered that colonized subjects must return to their pre‐colonial epistemologies and traditions. Fanon went even further to argue that before their return to pre‐coloniality, colonized subjects should engage with a project for collective catharsis, wherein they commit violence against their white masters. The central dilemma for this proposition remains the impossibility of going back to what once was without essentializing the normative values of a given culture. As such, within the discourse of relativism, there must be due consideration of those events that have forever altered pre‐colonial normality and redefined a culture’s values, practices, and heritage.

Using the case study of homophobia, this essay has endeavored to amplify the shifts encountered in the concept of cultural relativism as a result of the decolonization movement. Whereas relativism was, prior to the mid‐1950s at least, largely applied to safeguard the practices and belief systems of colonized states, since decolonization, the concept has become a political mechanism for elites to carve out niches for power maintenance through the evocation of essentialist narratives. These elites have apprehended cultural relativism to oppress various sexual communities among the indigenous populace.

There is a plethora of scholarly sources that indicate cultural relativism’s positive impacts on the project for social justice and egalitarianism. While the concept has recently been violently hijacked by a small number of privileged elites in the third world who proclaim themselves as being the epistemological repositories for their nations, relativism nevertheless holds great potential in our current global paradigm. Indeed, relativism can allow us to draw insights into cultural differences and to dismantle harmful power relations that are currently being harbored by the North/South, and East/West socioeconomic divide. Cultural relativism may very well provide a forum in which cross‐cultural dialogue can manifest most fruitfully. For this to occur, however, there must be holistic consideration of how relativism has been manipulated thus far.

Albeit traditional relativism beforehand the mid‐1950s was a craft utilized by both Western anthropologists and original people clusters to challenge European hobbies for traditional power, as decolonization, the believed possesses been seized by third globe bourgeois‐nationalist elites to undermine pre‐colonial opportunities of people from disparate non‐Western people group. Employing the contextual scrutiny of homophobia in Zimbabwe, I scrutinize how to dream elites of postcolonial states are misusing the priceless ethos of traditional relativism to mistreat people who plummet beyond the socioreligious area of ‘obligatory heterosexuality.’ This article finishes up by beseeching for a frank deal of traditional relativism so it rises above its present inspiring association alongside mistreatment and by and by comes back to epitomizing a methodology for protection from persecution, power, and communal foul play.

Placed at the core of cross‐cultural women’s activist and worldwide relations converse is the case of traditional relativism. As the finish of the Chilly War banters above traditional relativism possesses prevalently bifurcated researchers, professionals, and strategy creators into dichotomous schools of thought. Antagonists of the believed, ordinarily shouted universalists, unequivocally release relativism and alert for its request in the progress of globe standards and teachings that endeavor to describe straight out human rights. Universalists affirm that there are frank entitlements appended to every single person below all conditions. On the supplementary hand, there are the people who propose traditional relativism as being the main to constructing up flawless connections amid people clusters and expresses that retain up disparate communal statements of faith. Relativists state that distinctions continue endemically amid areas and must to be regarded.

This article enhances the demand of reevaluating the customary understanding of traditional relativism. I contend that traditional relativism as a believed possesses been problematized by a progression of postcolonial occasions. Lamentably, its standard meaning possesses stayed enduring. At the point after the word primarily picked up conspicuousness in frank learned circles amid the last piece of the pilgrim period construction, it was a word that exemplified protection from Western mastery, and its vital operators—that is, anthropologists—gone concerning as the medium across that original reports might be sent crosswise above areas alongside negligible danger of voice allotment. Pursuing the decolonization venture, be that as it could, traditional relativism was utilized for intentions past its underlying order. Those, at that point, possess noteworthy ramifications on an expansive scope of communal fairness concerns. This article investigates a serving of the ramifications of traditional relativism across a promise of present sexual legislative subjects in a specific postcolonial state.

To onset alongside, I delineate how traditional relativism was believed amid Western colonialism. Here anthropologists’ huge promises to the advancement of the world are underscored. At that point, I use contextual scrutiny of homophobia in Zimbabwe to display how traditional relativism possesses as of late been utilized by bourgeois‐nationalist elites as a method to prop their favored communal positions. In the finish, this examination returns to the disputatious believed of traditional relativism and contends for describing the word inside a frank construction that comprehensively thinks concerning inquiries of intensity and praxis.

Reaching out from the insightful improvements of Franz Boas and his alumni understudies at Columbia University in the late nineteenth‐ and mid-twentieth centuries, traditional relativism possesses picked up cash as both an average for learned earth discover and as the foundation of disparate communal belief systems. Boas, close by Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and disparate anthropologists, helped the progress of relativism’s average comprehension, which attests that all facts are liable to the standards and desires for an explicit sophistication and that neither freedoms nor value claims must to be believed as on an extremely frank level innate to human instinct. As Melville Herskovits puts it, ‘decisions depend on the understanding, and experience is elucidated by every single person as distant as his [or her] own enculturation.’ After related, this can surely be a challenging attestation in discussions above traditional mastery and traditional prevalence. In like manner, the excellencies of traditional relativism coil out to be chiefly remarkable after scrutinizing colonization.

As observed by women’s activist postcolonial scholar, Gayatri Spivak, a settlement was devoted to the advancing of parochial standards across that sex and racial flawless models were re-imagined so to make it reasonable alongside the colonizer’s philosophy. Henceforth, colonization’s communal conclude product was ‘keen on the seemingly permanent attention of adjusted ordinariness.’ Anthropologists who grasped to the ethos of traditional relativism, in that, wound up critical arrangements across that subaltern classes of this ‘changed typicality’— or all the extra just, the casualties of Western colonialism—could work constrained workplace and in each event endeavor to articulate to themselves in the rambling traditional transactions pending to bypass inside the area of liminality; to be specific, the communal interstices whereas deals amid and amid areas show.

Maybe extra critically, anthropologists possess conjured the believed of traditional relativism to deconstruct dreams of racial and traditional predominance. Opposite the axiological venture that terms the West as average and the Supplementary as a freak, relativists envisioned areas as being a piece of an extra noteworthy worldwide worldview that can’t be demanded in each kind of progressive arrangement, though plainly contrasted by their similitudes and contrasts alongside every single other. In this method, as indicated by them, no sophistication must to be believed as preferable or most noticeably dreadful above another; somewhat it must to be comprehended that they every single possess their interesting personality and that they must to be comparably understood for their self‐worth.

The definite best instances of traditional relativism displayed up underway of Boas. As finishing earth examination amid the Central Eskimos and the Kwakiutl Original people cluster of northern Vancouver, Boas crafted up a little key rationalities for the sociologies. In his 1911 momentous book, The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas dishonors hypotheses of racial predominance set somewhere adjacent his forerunners contending that racial—and phenotype—factors don’t from the preceding choose the estimations of each finished public. Rather, he upheld for understanding areas across a frank promise alongside their history.

Boas was instrumental in refining those people who varied in a statement of faith alongside Westerners. Vibrant in philosophy and trusting that learned opportunity progresses accepted power, Boas complicatedly cut the early point of think of traditional relativism, a viewpoint that was at early criticized by his partners, yet, possesses as coiled into the foundation for ethnographic research. Anthropologists possess to be sure been pivotal performers in producing cross‐cultural understanding. To completely worth anthropologists’ promise to relativism, it is helpful to link the constitution of frank scholar Homi Bhabha into this exchange.

In his early postcolonial content, The Locale of Culture, Bhabha contends that it is at destinations of liminality that traditional esteem is arranged. Anthropologists possess been coordinated in these rambling liminal spaces and, by and colossal, possess utilized their scholastic expert to fill in as the voice of gatherings who they dedicate their vocations to thinking and who possess for the most portion been hushed in the authoritative conversations of globe issues. That is, they possess, for above a century, worked as the middle person amid the Western globe and those gatherings that don’t possess a critical nearness inside the worldwide network.

As we went in the twenty‐first century, it coiled out to be unequivocally precise that traditional relativism was not ever once more a develop to be merely related as a way to comprehend human contrasts crosswise above worldwide societies. Rather, traditional relativism coiled into an armament in the arms stockpile of bourgeois‐nationalist elites that might be summoned alongside a conclude aim to undermine the voice‐consciousness and savage the lived encounters of the bulk house in postcolonial states. This span utilizes the subject of homosexuality in Zimbabwe as contextual scrutiny to examine how relativism possesses been usurped and twisted.

Anne Norton, an educator of dream theory at the University of Pennsylvania, gives an astounding examination of the non‐Western world’s reply to power in the period of post‐coloniality. As indicated by Norton, ‘the postcolonial organize, that denies postcolonial noteworthiness on the globe scene, instigates [postcolonial citizens] to make themselves seeming, make themselves seen. After the object of the realm’s voyeuristic restraining groundwork, they make themselves on-screen acts on the worldwide stage.’ In their frenzied endeavors to be perceived, postcolonial states endeavor to verbosely develop personalities that are contradictory to those typified by the West. As their European settlers described their past personality, usually what displays is a shallow polarization of original standardizing conventions to those qualities connected alongside the elevated West. The character caught here is enunciated by the believed that ‘we are Us as we are not Them.’

Ethical relativism highlights the idea that every situation may not have the same solution for all people. In Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues, the authors explain “Relative means that our judgments about ethics are relative to (or dependent on) something else.” In other words, one’s ethics are dependent on the person’s culture, religion, beliefs, and many other factors that make up the life they live. There is not one form of ethics but many, which makes ethical discussions difficult when there is a multitude of moral or ethical viewpoints. Due to the fact that there are many variations of ethics that have developed around the world one must be conscious of how to discuss and take a stance on controversial views. When discussing ethics, one must also be canescent of their audience and the views they may hold, while continuing to convey the ideas they believe to be morally correct.

As mentioned in class, the Kwakiutl tribe which inhabits the Pacific Northwest, including Washington and British Columbia, has been discussed as an example of ethical relativism. This tribe withholds a tradition that when a relative has died in any way to grieve the loss the close family goes on a manhunt to kill another tribe member. The tribe believes that this is a way to transfer and eliminate the grief from their own immediate family and on to another family. To the tribe themselves this is deemed ethical, but to an outsider looking in these same actions could be far from ethical. The culture in which the tribe members were raised made a great impact on them so much that they continue the tradition of a manhunt.

Many would question if the modern world or outside eyes should step in to make a change or enlighten the tribe that violent manhunts may not be the solution to the grieving process. Does the question still stand that if the tribe is containing the killing within their own society is it our duty to change their ethical views? Some may argue that if we can see the harm being done, we ought to stop the harm if possible, but others still may argue that tolerance of the situation would allow all parties to practice their beliefs without questioning of others.

Ethical relativism may seem like an appropriate stance in the Kwakiutl situation for some because there is no harm being done to the population living outside of the tribe themselves. The idea that those living outside could educate the tribe about ritual ceremonies of passing grief instead of literal killing may be beneficial to the tribe. In some cases, ethical relativism causes harm to many and needs to be dealt with in a different way. There is a grey area between when ethical relativism is appropriate and when one should take a stance against a harmful ethical idea. This example shows that there is no harm outside of the tribe, but humanity is being harmed, so is it correct to assume that the Kwakiutl ethical view is relative is still a question left unanswered by many.

If ethical relativism has been surpassed one often replaces it with tolerance. Tolerance is to respect that others have different beliefs than yourself, but it is far from equality. It is often the last resort after all attempts have been made to convert the thinking of a group to ideas similar to oneself with no success. As a society, we tolerate those who are unlike us without a full understanding of their ideas or cultural views. Striving toward further understanding of the cultures and moralities that have been solely tolerated in the past would allow questioning of morals that seem to need a change.

The relationship between tolerance and ethical relativism is fairly strong. Ethical relativism is followed closing by toleration in most cases. Many groups may not agree with the morals or actions of others but tolerate them in order to keep the peace. Toleration can be described as the last best attempt to cooperate with groups who think differently than ourselves. Toleration is not the same as equality, in the way that those who tolerate do not understand the reasoning behind another’s culture, but just let the actions occur whether they may be right or wrong.

Another example of ethical relativism, specifically cultural relativism, is the trials that Nelson Mandela encountered in South Africa and Robben Island. Mandela was an activist in South Africa who initially believed that government should be run by all black South Africans, because of his work against the entirely white South African government he was sent to Robben Island on a sentence of prison for life. All prison employees with Mandela and his colleagues were sent to Robben Island with no intentions to return. The South African government believed that if the activists were to never return the people would forget about the movement toward a government overhaul. The racial discrimination did follow from South Africa to Robben Island as the prison guards were all white and the prisoners were all black. Discrimination was also evident in the kitchen at Robben Island the food was rationed out based on skin color, giving the white guards an excess of food while the prisoners were given a smaller portion.

Since those on Robben Island were to never leave Mandela and the other prisoners made a decision to use their time wisely and become more educated. Some of the men would finish high school, while others would work toward post-secondary education. One prisoner presented the idea that the guards may also want to take advantage of the opportunity to be included in the education process. The idea of desegregated education would have never crossed the mind of the average citizen of South Africa due to the intense segregation. Robben Island had the chance to defy the cultural relativism of South Africa, and that is exactly with Mandela, other prisoners, and the guards did. The guards were included in the education process, pushing them closer to advancement which was not foreseen when sent to Robben Island. The black and white South Africans on Robben Island proved that when removed from a culture a group can overcome differences and eliminate cultural relativism.

After Mandela’s experience on Robben Island, his views on government changed dramatically. He no longer wished for the government to be composed of completely black South Africans but ruled by all South Africans. This idea of overcoming the cultural norm of apartheid through a mixed government of all South African races was Mandela’s vision. Not only did Robben Island benefit the government system of South Africa to overcome its many challenges, but the education also allowed many guards to succeed in advancement. The work put in at Robben Island is proof that relativism can be based solely on the cultural atmosphere, because once removed from South Africa the separation was no longer the top priority of the population of Robben Island.

Relativism may be overcome during inappropriate situations by growth in knowledge and the ability to argue what is valid ethical points between cultures. Outside eyes may present a problem with a current behavior exhibited in a population of people that has never been questioned within that population in the past due to the tradition of a culture or ethical relativism. As a culture, the members of the group should know why any kind of action is taking place and the reason behind the action, especially if the action were to affect another person. Many forms of relativism are based solely on tradition or on what our elders have passed on as the correct behavior. These forms consist of metaethical and individual relativism. These branches of relativism may be scrutinized most often because they are simply based on the ideas that are passed from generation to generation without consideration of new ethical ideas or change.

Overall, the topic of ethics can be very challenging to address with a wide variety of morals and views that can be relative to each and every culture. With ethical relativism, one can appreciate their own ethics while continuing to learn about other variations of ethics. Knowledge will assist society as a whole to avoid tolerance and inappropriate ethical relativism, along with helping to grow other cultures, morals, and ethics. “No moral principles are true for all people at all times and in all places” (Ethical Relativism), but knowledge of all principles and ethical views is beneficial to all people.

Sources

1. “Ethical Relativism.” AllAboutPhilosophy.org, 2002, www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ethical-relativism-faq.htm.
2. MacKinnon, Barbara, and Andrew Fiala. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. 8th ed., Cengage, 2015.

Introduction

In the realm of ethics, two prominent perspectives emerge: utilitarianism and moral relativism. Utilitarianism, founded on the principle of maximizing overall happiness, provides an objective framework for ethical decision-making. In contrast, moral relativism asserts that morality is context-dependent, varying among individuals and cultures. This essay aims to compare and contrast these two perspectives to elucidate their differences and implications for ethical reasoning.

Moral Relativism: Emphasis on Subjectivity

Moral relativism encompasses two main forms: cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism posits that morality is contingent upon cultural norms and practices, while ethical subjectivism holds that morality is determined by individual beliefs and perspectives. Both forms emphasize the subjectivity of morality, asserting that what is considered morally right or wrong varies based on context. This perspective denies the existence of universal truths or standards of morality, instead recognizing the diversity of moral beliefs across different societies and individuals.

Utilitarianism: Objective Standards of Goodness

Utilitarian moral theory, as advocated by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, offers an alternative approach to ethics. At its core, utilitarianism aims to define good and bad based on the principle of utility, which advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. Unlike moral relativism, utilitarianism provides objective standards of goodness, grounded in the principle of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This perspective transcends individual and cultural differences, offering a universal framework for ethical decision-making.

Critiques of Moral Relativism

One of the primary critiques of moral relativism is the argument from disagreement, which highlights the diversity of moral beliefs among individuals and cultures. This diversity raises questions about the validity of moral relativism’s claim that morality is solely contingent upon cultural or individual perspectives. Additionally, the argument from tolerance underscores the implications of moral relativism for moral judgments, suggesting that it may lead to a lack of accountability or moral progress. Furthermore, moral relativism’s inability to make meaningful moral comparisons or assess societal progress limits its efficacy as a guiding ethical framework.

Defense of Utilitarianism

In contrast to moral relativism, utilitarianism offers a more objective and justifiable approach to ethics. By focusing on the consequences of actions and their impact on overall happiness, utilitarianism provides a universal framework for evaluating moral choices. Refuting moral relativism’s subjectivity, utilitarianism asserts that there are objective standards of goodness that transcend individual and cultural perspectives. Moreover, utilitarianism guides actions towards promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number, emphasizing the importance of collective well-being over individual preferences.

Personal Example: Utilitarian Dilemma

To illustrate the contrasting implications of utilitarianism and moral relativism, consider a personal ethical dilemma involving cheating during an exam. From a moral relativist perspective, the morality of cheating may vary depending on individual beliefs or cultural norms. However, utilitarianism offers a clear framework for evaluating the consequences of cheating in terms of its impact on overall happiness. In this scenario, the utilitarian approach may prioritize the integrity of academic standards and the fairness of evaluations, outweighing individual desires or cultural norms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the comparison between utilitarianism and moral relativism highlights the divergent approaches to ethical reasoning. While moral relativism emphasizes the subjectivity of morality and the diversity of moral beliefs, utilitarianism provides an objective framework grounded in the principle of maximizing overall happiness. Despite its criticisms, utilitarianism offers a more justifiable and universal perspective on ethics, guiding actions towards promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. Ultimately, ethical decision-making necessitates a nuanced understanding of both individual and collective well-being, transcending individual and cultural differences.

Introduction

Relative is a view that is based on the fact that the truth and falsity, good and bad right and wrong are relative to an individual or a certain culture. In this case, one thing can be considered to be right in one culture but can be taken to be an abomination in another culture. This is brought about by the fact that different people have gone through different life experiences which are determined by different factors that surround them. These factors can either be environmental factors or age. (Steven D 2006).

People living in different environmental conditions view things differently. For example, there is a big distinct behavior difference between those people who live in urban areas and those living in rural areas. This is because the people living in rural areas are very conservative and most of them are very stubborn to changes. This is contrary to the urban class of people, who are very flexible to changes and are fast to embrace new technologies and new ways of doing positive things. This is because most of these people are educated and hence respond positively to any new good way of doing things. This makes the people living in rural areas and those living in urban areas always be in a state of conflict between what is right and wrong due to their differences in their view of things. (Steven D 2006).

The age difference can also make two groups of people differ on the issue of what is right or wrong. This is because the old people have gone through a different life experience to the one experienced by the young generation. This has been brought about by the change of technology and the cultural diversity due to the cross-cultural interactions. This diversity has contributed to the compromise of the various cultural norms and beliefs which were used in the past to define good or bad. This is very necessary as has helped to establish a conducive environment for the survival of the different people present in such a place to live in harmony regardless of their different norms and beliefs cultures. (Steven D 2006).

In absolutism, people have the view that truth or false bad or good right or wrong is one. Therefore, when they talk about moral absolutism, they believe that there exists a single right morality. Therefore, anyone else who does contrary to their view of what is right or wrong is automatically judged to be wrong irrespective of his/her cultural beliefs or norms.

Absolutism and relativism by Harman

According to Harman, absolutism and relativism are two extreme ethical approaches to reality. This is because though both are well supported by some facts they are always contrasting in their views. Their difference arises due to the different values that we have. Values are the things that give life a passion. They include love, faith, freedom, family, and education. These values are the one that gives someone hope and a purpose for being (Steven D 2006).

These values can be categorized as absolute values or relativism values. Absolute values deal with convention ethics. They assume that everything is certain. Relativism values on the other hand deal with a concept such as utilitarian and idealism. It believes that nothing is certain.

According to Harman, an ethical absolutist believes that there is a single moral standard that should apply to all people and each society should be a subject to it. They assume there is only one moral law and one external standard that govern all people. They believe that right is right and wrong is wrong irrespective of the place or time, that is they believe in black and white at all times and places. The belief that there is a distinct difference between what is good and what is thought to be good. According to them, actions are either good or bad regardless of their consequences. They believe that if two people disagree about what is right or wrong then one of the two people must be wrong because there is only one standard to determine good or bad and hence both of them cannot be right if they differ in their opinion. (Benjamin S 1978).

According to Harman, relativism is subjective and this makes it more sensible as a way of making a judgment. This is because the different cultural environment makes people view things differently concerning what is considered to be good or bad This method hence acts as a better way of determining what is good or bad this is because it puts into consideration the cultural differences before making a judgment. In relativism, it is very possible for more than two people to differ in their opinion on ethical issues and surprisingly find all of them justified due to cultural differences. (Steven D 2006).

This method is a good way of making a judgment in a cosmopolitan society where we have people with different beliefs. This is because it helps to unify the various cultures present in society to enable the people present to interact well and help them work in harmony for high performance in their day-to-day activities. This is situation is the opposite of the circumstance that should exist if absolutism is employed. This is because absolutism defines universal standards and laws which govern all people. This is not a good way because some people will feel discriminated against as they hold different cultural beliefs which they think are being undermined. Therefore a situation like this can result in disharmony of the people living or working together which can lower performance.. (Benjamin S 1978).

According to Harman, what is true what is moral or good differs from one individual to another and from one culture to another. He beliefs that there is nothing such as certain truth or fact. He believes that what is considered right in one culture might be wrong in another culture. What is considered moral by one culture can also be considered to be immoral in another culture that holds different beliefs?

Conclusion

The theory of absolutism which state that there is only valid truth and one moral code that governs all people, in all cultures at all times should be done away with. This is because this belief is very dangerous and wrong. It can lead to intolerance in a society because people who think they know what is right will become insensitive to the other group. This can perpetuate hatred between the two groups which can result in war or persecution in the society. Therefore, for harmony to perpetuate in our society we should embrace relativism which beliefs in cultural diversity and bring tolerance in the society. This helps to ensure harmony in society as everybody respects and tolerates each other. This method is the one that guarantees peace in society. It is also the one that helps to appreciate the various cultural beliefs that are present in different societies. People are made to accept that what they consider good in their culture might not be acceptable in a different culture and hence should learn how to live with those people they differ in beliefs at harmony. (Benjamin S 1978).

References

Benjamin S.Liamzon (1978) Ethical Absolutism and Relativism, University press of America, NewYork.

Steven D Hales (2006) Relativism and Foundation of Philosophy, IMT publishing Press Westport.