Overview
The debate between moral relativism and moral absolutism touches on fundamental questions about the nature of right and wrong, the source of moral authority, and how we should live together in diverse societies.
The Central Question
Are moral truths relative to cultures, societies, or individuals, varying across time and place? Or are some moral principles absolute and universal, applying to all people regardless of context?
Why This Matters
- Affects how we judge actions across cultures
- Influences approaches to human rights and international law
- Impact personal moral decision-making
- Shapes education and moral development
- Informs responses to moral disagreement
Contemporary Relevance
In our globalized world, this debate affects everything from international human rights law to multiculturalism, religious freedom, and cross-cultural dialogue.
Moral Relativism
Moral relativism holds that moral judgments are not absolutely true or false but are relative to particular frameworks—cultures, societies, historical periods, or individuals.
Types of Moral Relativism
Moral truths are relative to cultures. What is right in one culture may be wrong in another, and there are no culture-independent moral facts to adjudicate between them.
Individual/Subjective Relativism
- Moral truths are relative to individuals
- Each person's moral beliefs are equally valid
- "Right for me" vs. "right for you"
- No objective moral facts exist
Historical Relativism
- Moral truths change over time
- What was right in the past may be wrong today
- Moral progress is reinterpreted as moral change
- No timeless moral principles
Key Claims of Relativism
- Diversity thesis: Moral beliefs differ dramatically across cultures
- Dependency thesis: Moral truths depend on cultural acceptance
- No universal morality: No moral principles apply universally
- Tolerance imperative: We should be tolerant of different moral systems
Anthropological Influence
Moral relativism gained support from anthropological studies showing dramatic differences in moral practices across cultures, from kinship obligations to concepts of individual rights.
Moral Absolutism
Moral absolutism maintains that some moral principles are universally true regardless of culture, time period, or individual belief. These principles provide objective standards for evaluating actions.
Types of Moral Absolutism
Certain actions are always wrong regardless of circumstances. For example: "Murder is always wrong" or "Lying is always wrong."
Moderate Absolutism
- Some moral principles are universal but may have exceptions
- Circumstances can affect moral judgments
- Core principles remain constant across contexts
- Allows for moral complexity and nuance
Prima Facie Absolutism
- Moral principles create strong presumptions
- Can be overridden by stronger moral considerations
- Multiple moral principles may conflict
- Requires weighing competing moral demands
Sources of Absolute Moral Truth
- Divine command: God establishes universal moral law
- Natural law: Morality grounded in human nature
- Reason: Rational principles accessible to all
- Human rights: Universal dignity and worth
Universal Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents an attempt to establish absolute moral principles that apply across all cultures and political systems.
Arguments for Moral Relativism
Proponents of moral relativism offer several arguments to support their position against moral absolutism.
The Argument from Cultural Diversity
Anthropological research reveals dramatic differences in moral practices: some cultures practice polygamy while others mandate monogamy; concepts of individual rights vary widely; attitudes toward authority, gender roles, and violence differ significantly.
The Argument from Tolerance
- Moral absolutism leads to intolerance and imperialism
- Relativism promotes respect for cultural differences
- Avoids ethnocentric judgments about other cultures
- Supports cultural autonomy and self-determination
The Argument from Moral Disagreement
- Persistent moral disagreement suggests no objective truth
- If moral facts existed, we would expect convergence
- Reasonable people disagree about fundamental moral questions
- No neutral method exists to resolve moral disputes
The Argument from Social Construction
Sociological Perspective
Morality appears to be socially constructed to serve particular social functions: maintaining order, promoting cooperation, protecting group interests. This suggests morality is human-made rather than objective.
The Argument from Moral Progress
- What we call "moral progress" is actually moral change
- Earlier generations weren't morally inferior, just different
- Our current moral beliefs may seem wrong to future generations
- No objective standard exists to judge moral "improvement"
Arguments for Moral Absolutism
Defenders of moral absolutism present compelling reasons to believe in objective moral truths.
The Argument from Moral Experience
When we make moral judgments, we don't typically think "this is wrong for my culture" but rather "this is wrong, period." Our moral experience seems to involve objective truth claims, not mere preferences.
The Argument from Human Rights
- Some practices (genocide, torture, slavery) seem objectively wrong
- Human dignity appears to have universal validity
- Relativism cannot condemn obvious moral atrocities
- International law assumes some universal moral principles
The Argument from Moral Progress
- Societies have made genuine moral progress (ending slavery, expanding rights)
- Progress implies objective standards of improvement
- Reformers appeal to universal principles against local customs
- We can meaningfully judge past practices as morally wrong
The Self-Refutation Argument
Logical Problem
If relativism is true, then the statement "relativism is true" is only true relative to certain cultures or individuals. This seems to undermine relativism's claim to universal validity.
The Argument from Rational Convergence
- Despite surface differences, cultures share core moral concepts
- Rational reflection tends toward moral agreement
- Universal human nature grounds universal moral principles
- Cross-cultural moral dialogue is possible and fruitful
Middle Ground Positions
Many philosophers have sought positions that avoid the extremes of both pure relativism and rigid absolutism.
Contextualism
Moral principles are universal but their application depends on context. The principle "promote human flourishing" is universal, but what promotes flourishing varies by circumstances.
Pluralistic Relativism
- Multiple, sometimes conflicting moral values are objective
- Different cultures may legitimately prioritize different values
- Some variation in moral systems is acceptable
- But not all moral systems are equally valid
Minimal Universalism
- A thin core of universal moral principles
- Broad cultural variation in specifics
- Focus on basic human needs and capabilities
- Tolerance for different ways of life within bounds
Pragmatic Approaches
Practical Wisdom
Rather than resolving the theoretical debate, focus on developing practical wisdom (phronesis) that can navigate moral complexity with sensitivity to both universal principles and local contexts.
Practical Implications
The relativism vs. absolutism debate has significant consequences for how we approach moral issues in practice.
International Relations
- Human rights: Universal vs. culturally specific interpretations
- Humanitarian intervention: When is it justified?
- International law: Basis for universal legal principles
- Cultural imperialism: Avoiding imposing Western values
Domestic Policy
How should diverse societies handle conflicting moral practices? Should female genital cutting be permitted if practiced by immigrants from cultures where it's traditional? How do we balance religious freedom with other values?
Education
- What moral values should schools teach?
- How do we present moral disagreement to students?
- Should moral education emphasize universal principles or cultural sensitivity?
- How do we develop moral reasoning skills?
Personal Morality
Individual Choice
The debate affects how individuals think about their own moral commitments: Should I follow my culture's moral code? How do I evaluate practices I was raised with? What gives me the right to judge others?
Assessment
The debate between moral relativism and absolutism continues to evolve, with most contemporary philosophers seeking nuanced positions that acknowledge insights from both sides.
Contemporary Trends
- Movement away from extreme positions on both sides
- Recognition of both universal and particular elements in morality
- Emphasis on capabilities and human flourishing
- Integration of empirical research from psychology and anthropology
Unresolved Questions
- How thick or thin should universal moral principles be?
- What is the proper response to deep moral disagreement?
- How do we balance respect for cultural differences with moral criticism?
- What role should emotion play in moral judgment?
Methodological Considerations
Interdisciplinary Approach
Contemporary moral philosophy increasingly incorporates findings from anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience to understand the nature and development of moral judgment.
Rather than seeking simple answers, perhaps wisdom lies in accepting that morality involves both universal human values and legitimate cultural variation, requiring careful judgment and ongoing dialogue rather than rigid rules.