Moral relativism: definition and philosophical principles

What is moral relativism and where does this philosophical perspective originate?

Much of Hollywood movies, superhero comics and fantasy novels talk about good and evil as if they were two clearly differentiated things that exist as they do in all parts of the world.

However, reality is much more complex than that: the boundaries between what is right and what is wrong are often blurred.How do we know, then, what is the criterion for knowing what is right? Giving an answer to this question is already complicated in itself, but it is even more so when something known as moral relativism comes into play.

What is moral relativism?

What we call moral relativism is an ethical theory that there is no universal way of knowing what is right and what is wrong.. This means that from the perspective of moral relativism there are different moral systems that are equivalent, i.e. equally valid or invalid.

A moral system cannot be judged from a point of view external to it because there is no universal morality (i.e., valid regardless of the situation, place or time).

From this point of view, what we know as "good" as a moral concept (and therefore also what we know as "evil") are social constructs, products of the historical, cultural and technological development of human societies, and do not correspond to natural categories that exist independently of us moral beings. Consequently, one of the most disturbing and polemical implications of moral relativism is that no act or event, no matter how cruel and stark it may seem to us, is evil in an abstract and universal sense.It is so only under socially established premises and consensus.

On the other hand, moral relativism cannot be confused with methodological relativism. This concept is associated with not taking for granted that all human societies start from our system of ideas and values, and applies to the social sciences. Therefore, it does not have moral implications, but descriptive ones. For example, it can be used to learn more about a given culture and to be able to impose our ethical values and morals on it.

Examples in the history of philosophy

Moral relativism has been expressed in many different ways throughout history. Here are some examples.

The Sophists

One of the best known cases of moral relativism can be found in the Sophists of Ancient Greece. This group of philosophers understood that no objective truth can be known and no universally valid code of ethics can be found..

With that in mind, it is not surprising that they used their discursive ability and facility of thought to defend one or other ideas depending on who paid them. Philosophy was thus understood as a game of rhetoric, a set of strategies to convince others.

This attitude and philosophical position earned the sophists the scorn of great thinkers such as Socrates and Plato, who considered the relativism of the sophists to be a kind of mercenary craft of intellectuality.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche was not known for defending moral relativism, but he did deny the existence of a moral system. but he did deny the existence of a universal moral system valid for all..

In fact, he pointed out that the origin of morality is in religion, that is, in a collective invention to imagine something that is above nature. If one rules out that there is something above the functioning of the cosmos, that is, if faith disappears, morality disappears as well, because there is no vector indicating the direction our actions should take.

Later, many other philosophers of modernity questioned the ontological status of good and evil, considering that they are only social conventions.

The postmodernists

Postmodern philosophers point out that there is no separation between what we would call "objective facts" and the way we interpret them, which means that they reject the idea of an objective order both in describing reality and in establishing a moral code. That is why they defend that each conception of good and evil is simply a paradigm as valid as any other, which is a sign of moral relativism.which is a sign of moral relativism.

This fits well with the kind of ideas defended from postmodern ways of understanding the world, according to which there is no single universal narrative that is more valid than the rest, which would also be embodied in the concepts of right and wrong.

The facets of moral relativism

This belief system based on the relative is expressed through three facets.

Description

Moral relativism points out a situation: that there are several groups with moral systems that contradict each other and clash head-on. Thus, it does not go into justifying one or another ethical system.

Metaethical position

On the basis of moral relativism, it is possible to affirm something that goes beyond the description of these mutually opposed systems of morality: that above them there is nothing, and that for this very reason no moral position can be objective.

Normative position

This position is characterized by establishing a norm: all moral systems must be tolerated. Ironically, a norm is used to try to prevent behavior from being regulated, which is why it is often criticized that in this system there are many contradictions.

Bibliographical references:

• Beebe, J.R., (2010), Moral Relativism in Context, Noûs, 44(4): 691-724.
• Brogaard, B., (2007), Moral Contextualism and Moral Relativism, The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(232): 385-409.
• Capps, D., M.P. Lynch, and D. Massey, (2009), A Coherent Moral Relativism, Synthese, 166(2): 413-430.
• Margolis, J., (1991). The Truth About Relativism, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Storig, H. J. (1995). Historia Universal de la Filosofía. Madrid: TECNOS.
• Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2004). Moral Relativism.