Question

explain in detail the problem with ethical relativism as a position showing why moral objectivism is sound in comparison.

Answer 1

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.

The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. Slavery is a good example of this. Two hundred years ago in America, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable.

Ethical Relativism holds that there are no objective, universal moral principles that are valid for all people. There are two main forms of ethical relativism: cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. In short, ethical relativists believe that moral ideas are only a matter of societal norms or personal opinion, and are not binding upon others.

Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn't depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are.

Moral Objectivism holds that there are objective, universal moral principles that are valid for all people. Louis Pojman proposes one such moral principle that he believes is binding upon all human beings: “It is morally wrong to torture people just for the fun of it.”