Meta-Ethics
Moral Relativism
No universal morality — moral truths relative to cultures, individuals
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are not objectively true or false but relative to some standard — culture, individual, time. Two main forms: (1) Cultural relativism — moral truths relative to culture; what's right in one culture wrong in another. (2) Individual relativism (subjectivism) — relative to individual preferences. Cited evidence: cross-cultural moral diversity. Critics argue: implies tolerance for genocide if culturally sanctioned; can't explain moral progress; self-undermining (universal claim of relativism). Distinct from: descriptive moral diversity (just facts about variation), tolerance (different value judgment), pluralism.
- Two main formsCultural and individual (subjectivism)
- Cultural relativismTruth relative to culture
- Individual relativismTruth relative to individual
- Cited evidenceCross-cultural moral diversity
- Major criticJames Rachels, Bernard Williams
- Distinct fromDescriptive diversity; tolerance; pluralism
Interactive visualization
Press play, or step through manually. The visualization is yours to drive — try it before reading on.
Watch the 60-second explainer
A condensed visual walkthrough — narrated, captioned, under a minute.
Why moral relativism matters
- Cross-cultural ethics. Globalization issues.
- Anthropology. Cultural diversity.
- Tolerance. Pluralistic societies.
- Human rights. Are they universal?
- Religion. Different moral codes.
- Public policy. Multicultural decisions.
- Critical thinking. Avoiding ethnocentrism without abandoning ethics.
Common misconceptions
- Same as tolerance. Different concepts.
- Empirical fact. Normative claim.
- Saves us from imperialism. Forces accepting horrors.
- Diversity proves relativism. Can be agreement on cores; differences at edges.
- Compatible with critique. Severely limits cross-cultural critique.
- Settled philosophical question. Active debate.
Frequently asked questions
What's moral relativism?
Position that moral truths are not absolute but relative. Various forms. Cultural relativism: morality relative to culture; "right" means "approved by my culture." Individual relativism: relative to individual; "right for me" varies by person. Different from descriptive moral diversity (cultures actually disagree morally) — relativism is normative claim that no objective right answer exists.
What's the argument for it?
Diversity argument. Cultures differ on moral questions — slavery, women's rights, sexual norms, etc. If objective morality, would expect agreement. Diversity suggests no objective standard. Plus: tolerance — better to respect different cultural perspectives than impose one. Hume-influenced: morality based on sentiment (varies); not reason (would be uniform).
What are common objections?
Multiple. (1) Cultures aren't really uniform internally; relativism imprecise. (2) Implies tolerance for genocide if culturally sanctioned (Nazi Germany). (3) Can't explain moral progress (slavery now wrong). (4) Self-defeating: "all moral claims are relative" is itself absolute claim. (5) Diversity at periphery; agreement at core (don't murder, lie, etc.). (6) Specific values (human rights) make universal claims.
What's the difference between descriptive and normative relativism?
Descriptive: factual claim. Cultures differ in moral views. Empirically observable. Most agree this is true. Normative: should accept all cultural views as equally valid. Can't critique other cultures' practices. Stronger claim. Many accept descriptive without normative. James Rachels: argues for distinction.
What's the issue with progress?
Relativism struggles with moral progress. Example: ending slavery. Culture changed — abolition advocates were "wrong by their society's old standards" but right by ours. Did morality progress? Or just changed? Relativism: just changed. Critics: this misses something — abolition really was progress, not just change. Hard for relativism.
What's the difference from tolerance?
Tolerance: positive value of accepting diversity. Compatible with moral realism (e.g., believing tolerance is objectively good). Relativism: not just allowing diversity, but claiming no objective truth exists. One can be tolerant without relativist (defend universal human rights while respecting cultural diversity in many domains). Common confusion.
Is there moral pluralism?
Different from relativism. Pluralism: multiple legitimate moral values that can conflict (Berlin); can't be reduced to single principle. Doesn't mean all values equal or no objective answer. Just: irreducibly multiple. Compatible with realism. Some moral conflicts have no resolution by pure principles. Bernard Williams influential.