Morals Case

In this paper I will argue that moral relativism (MR) is a practical way of ethical reasoning in modern society. Given the complexity and number of cultures, MR is more of an ethical middle/neutral ground. In MR truths are only relative to a framework. Today these frameworks are created through customs, cultural groups, and legal systems. Essentially this means that when someone asks about the morality of an act it is more important to understand an individual's cultural moral code versus asking directly about the act itself. One of the objections to moral relativism is that it denies that there are moral claims that are independently true regardless of the framework that they are a part of. However, moral relativists allow for the possibility of universal moral truths or truths that all cultural groups accept. Since MR is culturally based and therefore based on individual choice, what a person believes in is true to them. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next (Noggle).

Moral relativism believes that morality does not relate to any absolute principles of morality that everyone should conform to. It is the opposite of moral absolutism, which is the idea that there are universal standards of right and wrong, whether or not people agree with them. In order to understand MR it can be broken down into cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism encompasses morality and other areas like religious beliefs and socially acceptable behavior based on certain cultures. The other part, ethical subjectivism, holds that morality is relative to individuals. Both of these ideas deny the existence of moral absolutes, or truths that everyone holds.

Moral relativism has been used positively to effect change in the law or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. For instance, the U.S. constitution, which has been viewed as a living constitution subject to changing interpretation can be considered morally relative. The Supreme Court justices over time have referred to the constitution as "evolving" since it can be modified and refined based on the cultural standards of that time. When discussing moral conflicts US citizens tend to focus their attention on present-day issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, affirmative action, where there is widespread disagreement. However, people tend to ignore the fact that the disputants in these debates share similar values and in the past have solved a number of problems, such as slavery and civil rights.

There are several arguments defending MR. The argument of disagreement holds that moral relativism accounts for fact that different individuals and cultures have different moral beliefs. Moral disagreement validates that morality is simply a result of personal opinion or culture, a claim made by moral relativism. Another argument is the argument of flexibility which says that the alternative to moral relativism, moral absolutism, is flawed in certain circumstances. There are always exceptions to moral rules where for instance immoral acts are morally justifiable. Then it can be said that if there are no moral absolutes, moral relativism is plausible. Lastly is the idea of tolerance. Moral relativism is one of the only views that suggest that people should be tolerant of those from different cultural backgrounds with whom we disagree (Harman).

One objection