http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ethical-relativism.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081006214009AAjqpGC

http://donforsyth.wordpress.com/ethics/the-epq/

Definition A tendency to make ethical choices only on the basis of what looks right or reasonable according to one's own belief or value system.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ethical-relativism.html#ixzz2Dc1BezX3

In anthropology, we try to look at cultures using their own values. In other words, we don't use our own worldview to interpret or judge other societies. This is to avoid the ethnocentrism (belief that your own way of life is somehow better than another person's) that was prevalent in a lot of early anthropological works and other social science studies. However, anthropologists are also careful not to write purely from an insider (emic) view because this would also skew things. Ideally, scholars take both an emic and an etic (neutral outsider) look at cultures and attempt to use both in order to portray the society in the most unbiased manner possible. 

This seems simple enough when you are talking about relatively "safe" topics such as how groups celebrate birthdays or create art. We can recognize and even appreciate these differences. But it becomes more difficult when we talk about ethical issues. A great example is women's rights. From a neutral, purely observer, ethically relative view we shouldn't judge a community that practices female circumcision or approves of beating a wife if she steps out of her culturally ascribed roles. But I think most Americans would be horrified if confronted with female genital mutilation. In our society, such acts are viewed as incredibly cruel and would result in harsh punishments. Yet, this isn't the case with all societies and the goal of anthropology (at least for some scholars) is to understand and explain. We can't do that if we scream and lecture and throw up walls. We have to approach the topic from an ethically relative point of view in that we have to attempt to understand what it means and how it functions within that society. Interviews, observations, watching rituals, etc. will flesh out our understanding of this rather complicated and deeply ingrained practice. If women refuse to participate, they are considered unclean and disgusting. They cannot get husbands, they cannot have children, they are outcasts. And so we discover that it is women, more than men, that insist girls have the surgery. In the journal article or book or whatever that contains the write up of the study, there will be greater insight into the culture because the author hasn't forced their own values and biases on the culture they are studying.

Now, there are some anthropologists who argue that the story should end there. We explain, we show how it is part of the overall cultural system, what it means to the people involved, etc. and we do so without passing any judgment or attempting to change anything. 

However, I think this attitude is changing. Today, many anthropologists have pushed for education and assistance for communities that are in dire need for help or where human rights violations are taking place. We can't look at something like Darfur and just say, "Well my goal is to look at it passively as a scientist and not judge or change anything." Often anthropologists who have studied with a group for years have an understanding of how the culture works that can help solve some of these problems. This has backfired at times (guards used an anthropological study to shame and torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib) and what exactly counts as "human rights" is still highly debated. But anthropology does seem to be moving in the direction of not merely explaining but suggesting as well.

Source(s):Usually it is used to refer to a system of thought (or a philosophical standing) in which it is argued that moral and/or ethical values are not universal but rather context dependent. For instance, cultural anthropologists -usually inclined to certain degree of moral relativism- say that something one culture might consider highly valuable (i.e. virginity, freedom or honesty) can be considered irrelevant or even wrong or bad in another culture. So something is considered right or wrong, good or bad for the society that built those values.You could also apply the concept to people that argue that everyone has their own moral standards and there is no way to agree with others, so (they say) nothing is actually good or bad.It is not the same as saying that someone is immoral. That would imply a lack of standards or the absence of a system. Moral relativism implies a set of standards that are coherent to the system and will be enforced within a specific social group.

Murder is wrong. Shooting an enemy soldier to save a comrade is heroic. Both involve killing a fellow human being. Essentially the same thing, yet viewed quite differently.

Examples of ethical absolutism and relativism??

4 years ago

Report Abuse

Houston, we have a problem

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Absolutism is an ethic that is unconditional, usually considered preordained by a higher power or "natural" law.

Best example - The "unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" claimed by our forefathers.

Relativism is an ethic that is related to local customs, beliefs, or necessities.

Staying with the same theme, many cultures did not consider life as an unalienable right, considering human sacrifices, slavery, and even cannibalism as ethical within their cultures.

There is no true absolute human ethic.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html

Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of

Culture, diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the

contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a

husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before

they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who

are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental

death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of

anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest

and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for

incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime

punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46)

Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but

condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such

differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is

merely a matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in

ethics -- the concept of "ethical relativism."

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. For the ethical relativist,

there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times.

The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism

is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on

ethical matters among members of different societies.

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies

may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some

societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the

belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous.

While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the

underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of

fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.

Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not.

Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other

practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and

judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices

are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.

Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These

philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it

follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally.

This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally

permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity

and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same

society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions

exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social

consensus is lacking?

Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral

standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can

acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices

and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of

apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi

society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.

For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons

underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails

to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.

But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises

important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that

our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs

that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V5 N2 (Summer 1992

Ethical Relativism-Business In Japan

Culture has a visible and practical effect upon organizational performance and individual satisfaction. Understanding and working within cultural constraints is essential for organizational effectiveness. In addition, it is a changing phenomenon and hence requires constant study of, and adjustment to, its impact upon organizational structure, process, and behavior.

Cultural imperatives affect every aspect of an expatriate manager’s overseas experience. One way to appreciate this simple fact is to examine the personal qualities that contribute to success in a foreign assignment. There are four categories of qualifications essential to success in Japan. According to top executives in more than a dozen large international corporations, the categories are: technical competence, cross-cultural knowledge, a unique ‘mix’ of physical and personality characteristics, and language ability.

Technical CompetenceTechnical competence creates enormous difficulties and many surprises in any foreign assignment. Overseas managers, therefore, simply do not have the time or energy to sharpen their basic job skills when each day brings some new, unexpected crisis. Their credibility with foreign managers must always be impeccable. An impressive past record of achievement will go far towards impressing their hosts with the fact that they are dealing with an expert.

To illustrate the element of surprise so common in foreign cultures, we look at engineering standards, which are by no means universal in nature. Standards in Asian countries may be European or American, depending largely upon historical association. Even with respect to contracts, which Westerners believe to be binding in every respect, Asian companies may ignore a key clause simply because ‘circumstances have changed’ since signing the agreement. Focusing on a less serious scale, there are many ‘little surprises’ encountered every day in a foreign assignment. For example, the concept of time may differ widely among various cultures. In many Asian countries, a meeting called for ten o’clock may convene at twelve o’clock—with no apology for the delay. Semantics are also an important characteristic for Asian countries, meaning there is really another understanding for the words being said. An answer assumed to be ‘yes’ may turn out to be ‘no,’ or at best ‘we will give the matter further thought.’

Cross-Cultural KnowledgeCross-cultural knowledge needs to be best understood through a bit of research. To achieve up-to-date cross-cultural understanding is not an easy task. For global salespeople, often moving from one country to another makes the task impossible. On the other hand, expatriate managers who are assigned to a single country for an extended period of time, it is an achievement, which can mean the difference between success and failure. Also, business cards are always used in Japan when one business executive meets another. They should be a standard pattern and sized to fit Japanese filing systems and must have square corners, since round corners are used only by women. They should be bilingual and presented Japanese side up, with the printing facing the receiver.

Physical and Personality CharacteristicsPhysical and personality traits are further requirements for expatriate success. Little needs to be said about the tremendous importance of good physical and mental health. A foreign assignment naturally means changes in climate, diet, and exercise habits. The difficult adjustment to a new environment leaves little time for medical treatment or therapy. Furthermore, medical practices differ sharply among countries. Japanese physicians, for example, typically double as pharmacists. In Japanese hospitals, a family member is expected to stay with the patient and help with his care. Many Westerners are particularly

surprised to learn that it is unusual for patients to tip a doctor upon completion of treatment. If we look at personality traits, patience and humility are particularly prized in many Oriental cultures, whereas these traits are not as well known with Western managers. Closely related is the need for a high tolerance for silence. Europeans and Americans tend to be articulate and outspoken, and find long periods of silence almost unbearable. Many Asians, on the other hand, will consider the prolonged silences during negotiations to be the most productive time. Silence, while considering the full range of alternatives in a difficult situation, will earn high marks for the expatriate dealing with Asian counterparts.

Respect for age is another cultural norm widely observed in many cultures. In most Oriental societies, the age or wisdom equation still exists. Older executives are wiser, and thus should be recognized first and should be given your full attention. It is difficult for managers from American and other youth-centered cultures of the West to accept this deference to age.

Language BarriersThe last and sometimes most painful cultural barrier is language. Perhaps the most misleading and overworked expression in international business is, “Don’t worry, they all speak English.” It is true that the language of international business is English. Nevertheless, it is also true that colleagues with whom an expatriate must work, day in and day out, will not all be able or willing to ‘work in English.’ Being confined to those foreign executives who can handle the special vocabulary of managerial English means being limited to a small, and usually atypical, group of associates abroad. The ability to understand and work within the accepted value system and codes of behavior is essential for effective managerial performance. This is over expressed in Japan because the management system is unique to its country.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Relativism.htm

Chapter  8: ETHICSRELATIVISM

People develop their thinking concerning morality over time.  They do so

as a result of interactions with individuals and social institutions.  In

different societies each with their own cultures there are different ideas

concerning how humans are to behave.  Different societies and cultures

have different rules, different mores, laws and moral ideas. 

In the twentieth century people became quite aware of these

differences.  The impact of this information when coupled with the theories

of the Existentialists and Pragmatists became quite significant in the realm

of Ethics.  The Existentialists with their theory of radical freedom and

human choice and responsibility placed morality within the sphere of

human decision-making.  There were no essences before existence of

beings and there would be no rules before the existence of the beings who

would make the rules for themselves.  The Pragmatists also departed from

belief in absolutes and generalizations and any universal criteria for

judgment.  For the pragmatists reality itself was not a given but a human

construct and reflective of the society’s criteria for judgment concerning

truth.  So, it came to pass as a part of Post Modernism that there would be

a school or tradition of thought that would hold that all thinking about

Ethics was also subject to human decision making within a social

framework.  This school would hold that there are no universal or absolute

principles in Ethics to which all humans are to be subject. 

Through the twentieth century many humans have come to accept a good

deal of the relativistic perspective.  Relativism has entered into the

thinking of many people, even people who would hold for some absolutist

ideas.  Yes , there are people who hold inconsistent and contradictory

ideas concerning morality and ethics.  How does this come to be?

 First let us clarify some terms:

Cultural  relativism

Descriptive ethical relativism

Normative ethical relativism

 Cultural  relativism  describes  the simple fact that there are

different  cultures and each has different ways of behaving, thinking and

feeling as its members learn such from the previous generation.  There is

an enormous amount of evidence to confirm this claim.  It is well known by

just about every human on the planet that people do things differently

around the globe.  People dress differently, eat differently, speak different

languages, sing different songs, have different music and dances and have

many different customs.

This is a scientific theory well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists.

Descriptive ethical relativism describes the fact that in different cultures one of the variants is the sense of morality: the mores, customs and ethical principles may all vary from one culture to another.  There is a great deal of information available to confirm this as well.  What is thought to be moral in one country may be thought to be immoral and even

made illegal in another country.

This is a scientific theory well supported by the

evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists.

Examples:

 Moral in USA Immoral in   Eating Beef IndiaDrinking alcohol, Gambling Middle Eastern Islamic CountriesWomen in school or business AfghanistanWomen wearing shorts, face uncoverd Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan

 Or the reverse pattern

 Immoral in USA Moral or AcceptableKilling newborn females China, IndiaFemale genital mutilation Many African nations (It is female

circumcision)Family kills a woman family member who is raped

Somalia, Sudan

    Can you think of other examples?

  

Normative ethical relativism is a theory, which claims

that there are no universally valid moral principles.

Normative ethical relativism theory says that the moral

rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to

society and that there are no absolute universal moral

standards binding on all men at all times.   The theory

claims that all thinking about the basic principles of

morality (Ethics) is always relative.  Each culture

establishes the basic values and principles that serve as

the foundation for morality.   The theory claims that this

is the case now, has always been the case and will always

be the case.

This is a philosophical theory that is NOT well

supported by the evidence gathered by cultural

anthropologists, nor could science support a theory

about the past and future!  It is a theory that has

evidence against it. (see next lectures)

In the next lecture we will examine this theory and its

implications and criticisms closely for now consider the

table below which shows the contrast between absolutism

and relativism.

 Relativism  Skepticism

-no moral principles exist

 

Absolutism

There are universal ethical principles that apply to all humans.

There are absolutes.

Cultural Relativism 

 

There exists a moral core-without which  

i.society will not flourish

ii.individuals will not flourish

Descriptive Ethical Relativism

   

Normative Ethical Relativism 

   

no universal criteria   A) there exist moral truthsno absolutes not even tolerance

  B) Reason can discover truths

no criticism of majority   C) it is in our interest to promote them

reduces to subjectivism    We should not make moral judgements concerning other individuals and societies.

  We do and should judge other individuals and societies with reason and with sympathy and understanding.                 

 Have you ever thought or heard and not challenged the idea that we should not make moral judgments of other people?  Have you ever thought that each person must make up his or her own mind about what his or her moral rules will be?  Have you ever accepted the idea that "Unless you walk a mile in the other man's moccasins, you can not make a judgment concerning him"? 

Have you ever thought that while some act might not be morally correct for you it might be correct for another person or conversely have you thought that while some act might be morally correct for you it might not be morally correct for another person?  Have you thought that each person must make up his or her own morality? 

Well, if you answered, "Yes" to any of the above you have relativistic ideas operating in your thought system.  Now you might ask yourself whether or not you really accept those ideas? 

Do you believe that you must go out and kill several people in order to make

the judgment that a serial killer is doing something wrong?  Do you really believe that you need to kidnap, rape, kill and eat several young men in order to reach the conclusion that Jeffrey Damer did something wrong, morally wrong and horrible? 

Do you think that killing newborn babies because they are females is wrong, even for the Chinese?  Don't you think that once the Chinese and Indians and Africans have a higher quality of life and are better educated that they will and should stop doing those things that harm, kill or degrade women?  If you do you have absolutist ideas working in you as well.

 How can you hold opposing ideas at the same time? 

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Normative_Ethical_Relativism.htm

http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/main/page.php?page_id=145

Foundation News       

Poverty: A human rights violation

November 29, Calgary

 

Books:

Gender, culture and religion: Tackling some difficult questions

  

Deal with it! Free speech, ethics and the law in Canada

  

Op-eds: 

Whistleblower protection needed to curb corruption

  

Blackboards as billboards undermine public education

 

More op-eds

 

Position papers:  

Keeping free expression free 

The "parental opt-out" should be repealed 

                   

Recent event videos:

Public education: What should it be, and how do we achieve it?   

More event videos

         

 

What is Ethical Relativism? 

As part of our ongoing Diversity Project, the Chumir Foundation is developing resources to help people think clearly about how we can live well in a diverse society. A key issue in this regard is “ethical relativism.” What is ethical relativism? “Ethical relativism” is the view that what is right and wrong can only be determined or justified relative to the standards of the individual, group or culture in question. More specifically, “cultural ethical relativism” can be stated as follows: 

Ethical standards vary from culture to culture; therefore, there are no universal moral standards which apply across cultures.

 On this view, female genital mutilation (FGM) is not wrong in Somalia because the practice accords with local tradition, but it is deeply wrong here because it is contrary to Canadian gender equality (amongst other reasons). Ethical relativism appeals to many people. But as we shall see, it leads to a number of inconsistent and unsatisfactory conclusions. First, let us make an important distinction, for there are two main types of ethical relativism: 

Descriptive relativism notes that there are differences among cultures’ ethical practices and standards without saying anything about their justification. 

Prescriptive relativism goes further and claims that people ought not to apply the standards of one culture to evaluating the behaviour of another culture. This is usually called “cultural relativism.” At the Chumir Foundation we are primarily interested in cultural ethical relativism and so we will focus on the latter, that is, prescriptive relativism.  And as a heads up on where we are going here, consider this: 

If it is true that people ought not to judge the morality of another group’s behaviour, then people in the developing world cannot criticize the much higher per capita consumption of resources in the developed world. Why? Because the standards of the developing world cannot be used to judge the behaviour of people in other parts of the world. This is not, we think, what relativists had in mind when they signed on for relativism. Relativism, contrary to what many of its adherents believe, is not a progressive doctrine. What motivates relativism? Here are several well-intentioned reasons why relativists think people from one culture ought to refrain from judging the ethical practices and standards of another culture: 

Descriptive relativism seems right because globalization has increased awareness of the diversity of cultures with different moral practices and standards;

There is the perception that moral disagreements are irresolvable because there appears to be no intercultural standards of evaluation;

There is a desire to “live and let live”; There is a fear of absolutism (“our way is the right way”); There is widespread belief that people should respect, or at least tolerate, other people’s cultural values

and practices; There is skepticism or uncertainty about the justification of one’s own moral values; There is deep unease about imperialism towards other cultures; this is one of the legacies of colonialism.

 We don’t think these factors justify or require us to adopt relativism. On the other hand, they are understandable reasons for being tempted by relativism. But what are the arguments offered in support of this view? Arguments for relativism

 1. The actual diversity of moral practices and standards

 There is no denying that human behaviour and ideas of right and wrong vary from culture to culture and across historical periods. As noted, Somalians think FGM is morally permissible, whereas we do not. Let’s call the view that moral standards differ from culture to culture the “diversity thesis.” But right away we should notice that just because there happens to be such diversity of moral standards, it doesn’t follow that each set of standards is equally right orjustified. The diversity thesis is a claim about what is the case in the world, not about whether one set of standards is better than another.

 2. The dependency of those practices and standards on the specific culture

 The relativist takes the diversity thesis further, though, by combining it with what we can call the “dependency thesis.” This is the idea that the wrongness or rightness of actions depends on or is relative to the culture from which they emanate. The diversity thesis points out that Somalians and Canadians, for example, havedifferent standards. Then the dependency thesis says that only the standards of Somalians should be used to judge the actions of a Somalian. If this is true then it is also true that the standards of Somalians should not be used to judge the actions of Canadians.  This is cultural ethical relativism in a nutshell. And if taken seriously it means—amongst many other things—that we should allow Somalian communities in Canada to practice FGM, and we may even have to consider funding it under our public health care system. Relativism also means that Somalians and other Africans cannot be critical of Canadians’ refusal to spend more money on humanitarian or

development assistance to Africa. Nor can it be said by anyone other than Norwegians that Norway is a morally better society for having devoted the highest percentage of GDP in the world to foreign aid. The problem of ethical disagreement Ethical disagreement is an inevitable feature of human life, but there is much confusion about just what is at issue in ethical debates and how or whether ethical views can be justified. Since there are no standards of intercultural evaluation, claims the cultural relativist, ethical disagreements are, by their very nature, irresolvable. This is often taken as further support for relativism: if disagreement is inevitable and irresolvable, we should just agree to disagree. Ethical standards are more like questions of taste than of fact: “I like strawberry ice cream and you like chocolate; neither preference is ‘right’ or ‘better.’ End of story.” Notice that one of the consequences of ethical relativism is that no one can ever bewrong about their ethical beliefs or values. Nor can anyone ever be right since all ethical views are relative to individual preference or cultural values. This presents an obvious problem for ethical debate: if ethics are relative to some standard, say, individual preference or cultural values, then it is hard to see how individuals or cultures with competing ethical beliefs could ever resolve their moral disagreements. The relativist takes the fact of moral disagreement as evidence for its inevitability. Why we aren’t relativists (even if we think we are) But just because we don’t in fact agree about ethical standards, it doesn’t follow that there aren’t any ethical standards that transcend our given cultural standards. Why else would we argue about ethical matters, unless we think that there are standards that are better than others and that we can rationally persuade other people (and be persuaded ourselves) about the rightness of some standards and the wrongness of others? How does relativism help us deal with the problem of moral disagreement? Imagine, for example, if instead of ice cream preferences we agree to disagree about the morality of slavery. Is this just a case of “I oppose slavery and you endorse it—oh well, we agree to disagree about whether slavery is right or wrong.” Does this square with our deep sense of moral concern regarding practices we think are wrong? Relativism doesn’t do justice to moral disagreement: when we consider difficult ethical cases, rather than trivial questions of taste about ice cream, we see that we don’t really think morals are relative after all. As a response to the contentiousness of ethical disagreement, relativism doesn’t help since it just leaves everything as it is. Does moral diversity imply relativism? We have noted that there are diverse moral practices and standards, but perhaps such diversity does not imply relativism. For example, can you imagine a culture or society with no conception of honesty and no prohibition against lying? If a culture had no prohibition against lying, they would never be able to trust anything that any of their members said. Of course, cultures do have different rules about lying; for example, there are a variety of cultural views about the acceptability of telling “white lies” to spare someone’s feelings. In some cultures it is expected that when Aunt Martha asks you whether her hideous hat looks nice you will say “yes”, whereas in other cultures it is acceptable, if not expected, to say, “No, it is an ugly hat Aunt Martha.”

 We can have significant relativity at the descriptive level of how a concept is applied, but agreement at a deeper level: cultures differ on what counts as appropriate honesty, but they all value honesty in some form. So there is more overlap amongst ethical concepts than the argument from diversity leads us to believe. But the relativist says more than that different cultures express the same concepts in different ways. The relativist maintains that the concepts themselves are culturally relative, that is, they are products of the culture in which they are expressed. Consider Herodotus’ account that the Callatians ate the bodies of their dead fathers while the Greeks practiced ritual cremation of their dead. Each cultural practice was abhorrent to members of the other group. Yet even here we can see a shared value: both groups expressed respect for their dead in funerary rites, albeit in very different ways. So the relativist claim that there can be fundamental, irresolvable disagreement between cultures seems overstated. There seems to be common ground to resolve moral disagreements by appealing to shared values; for example, the Callatians and Greeks could at least begin to understand each other by appealing to their shared respect for their ancestors. This doesn’t mean that they would come to easy agreement about the ethics of respecting the dead, but it seems wrong to assume that they have no shared values. Arguments against relativism Earlier we noted some of the well-intentioned reasons for being a relativist, especially the desire to be tolerant of other cultures and to avoid making imperious judgments about others’ cultural practices. While these aims are laudable, there are some serious reasons to be sceptical about the truth of relativism. Whose culture?  A key difficulty with cultural relativism is that cultures aren’t uniform, so perhaps the idea of irresolvable moral disagreement between cultures doesn’t make sense. 

We tend to think of cultures or societies as being like a Mondrian painting—a series of discrete blocks or silos which do not interact with each other and cannot understand each other. 

Piet Mondrian, Composition A

 But, in fact, aren’t cultures or societies more like a Jackson Pollock painting? As British philosopher Mary Midgley puts it, “If there were really an isolating barrier … our own culture could never have been formed. It is no sealed box but a fertile jungle of different influences—Greek, Jewish, Roman, Norse, Celtic, and so forth, into which further influences are still pouring.” And isn’t there significant disagreement within cultures about ethical issues? For example, consider the range of disagreement in the abortion or gay marriage debates within Canadian or American society.

 

Jackson Pollock, Convergence

 Moreover, isn’t there significant overlap amongst different cultures? Again, try to imagine a culture without a conception of honesty. Can you? Of course, different cultures may enact their concept of honesty differently, but if they didn’t share a concept of honesty at some deeper level, how could they even argue about whether “white lies” are acceptable or not? Remember that relativism arises because of the diversity thesis: we notice the differences between cultural conceptions of ethics and some people conclude that there are no common ethics shared across cultural boundaries. But this seems to be a false assumption, or at least it is overstated. Relativism is self-refuting A standard refutation of relativism is that it is self-refuting. The argument goes like this:    (P1) The relativist claims that all ethical judgments are relative.   (P2) Premise 1 is a universal judgment and an ethical judgment. So it is both universal and relative.   (C) Therefore, relativism is self-refuting. The argument is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in arguing absolutely for the relativity of every judgment but this one. The relativist denies that there is any absolute standard for comparing ethical standards but then claims that we ought not to judge others’ ethical standards. This is itself an ethical judgment (“ought”) and so the relativist is caught in a contradiction: they deny the objectivity and universality of all ethical judgments except for the one that we ought not to judge others’ ethical judgments. But why should anyone else accept this? Can’t we just say to the relativist: “well that’s just your opinion about ethical judgments, but since it is on the same level as every other ethical judgement, we don’t have to accept it”? So the desirable aspect of relativism—that it fosters tolerance—is slipping away. How tolerant must we be?

 Put another way: there is a problem about tolerance. The relativist says that there are no universal standards except for tolerance, but according to relativism, why should we be tolerant? Why should a society which has no norm of tolerance accept that it should be tolerant? And why should a society with a robust belief in tolerance be willing to tolerate the potentially harmful practices of a society which does not? Respect and tolerance of other people’s values and practices do not entail that we may not judge them. In fact, respect may actually require judgment, properly understood. Isn’t there something condescending about saying, “I don’t understand what you stand for, but I think it is good”? Imagine saying “I don’t understand your belief in the rightness of holding slaves, but I think it is good and I respect your decision to do so.” This would mean that the person could stand for the exact opposite belief and I would still respect him. Isn’t this actually disrespectful? In effect I’m telling him that I don’t care what he stands for because his views don’t matter to me. Coming to understand someone else’s beliefs, and therefore respecting them, involves being able to justify our favourable judgments of their beliefs. If we can justify our favourable judgments, logically we can also be justified in making critical judgments. The need for humility Of course, this requires humility about our own moral values—there is no room for smug superiority here. Remember the whole issue of relativism arose in response to intercultural evaluations and the need to avoid ethnocentrism. If we are willing to criticize others, we must be open to criticism in return. For example, many people in non-western societies criticize our treatment of elderly people. How, they ask, can you leave your elderly parents alone in a nursing home rather than care for them at home? To dismiss this criticism out of hand because it comes from people “outside” of our culture would be to slide back into the moral isolationism that relativism fosters. Asymmetry of judgments and moral isolationism Notice that ethical relativism would prevent us from praising just as much as from criticizing other cultures. If relativism is right then it doesn’t make sense for people outside Scandinavia, for example, to praise the generous social safety net there as morally superior to, say, the extremely low welfare payments in a place such as Alberta. And if relativism is true, then we are immune to the moral judgments of others.  If we can’t criticize (or praise) other cultures, why do we think that they can criticize (or praise) us? For example, western societies use most of the world’s resources, but, if we are relativists, we can’t justify criticism of this fact coming from the developing world—over-consumption is just our way of doing things; no one can say that it is unfair if there is no intercultural concept of fairness. Mary Midgley points out the necessity of moral judgment: 

The power of moral judgment is … not a luxury, not a perverse indulgence of the self-righteous. When we judge something to be good or bad, better or worse than something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid. Without opinions of this sort, we would have no framework of comparison for our own policy, no chance of profiting by other people’s insights or mistakes. In this vacuum, we could form no judgments on our own actions.

 To accept relativism is to accept a kind of paralysis in our ability to make ethical judgments. Relativism can lead to ethical paralysis 

If we accept relativism, then we seem paralyzed with regard to our obligations to others. If we don’t think we can justifiably make judgments about practices and beliefs we find objectionable, then we have no impetus to work to change those practices and beliefs. If all ethical standards are equal, there are no grounds to criticize practices which we find ethically wrong—after all, that’s just “their” way of doing things and “we” have “ours.” But, if we reject relativism, that is, if we think that we can make ethical judgments about the practices of other cultures—and vice versa—then it seems that we do have some obligations towards others. For example, if we are relativists, we have no grounds for opposing the beliefs of extremists in Afghanistan who think that girls and women have no right to an education or any control over their own lives. Now, assuming that we reject relativism and we do think we have an obligation to oppose the subjugation of girls and women, there remain very difficult questions about how best to carry out these obligations. But this doesn’t mean that we should fall back on relativistic moral isolation. At the very least, we have an obligation to engage in respectful, critical dialogue with others, starting from our common ground whenever possible, to see if we can arrive at the best ethical practices and standards available. Again, this is a two-way street: we are not suggesting that it is up to one group to be the “ethics police” towards others. But the difficulty of engaging in intercultural dialogue about ethics shouldn’t lead us to retreat into either ethnocentrism or relativism. Instead, we should approach ethical debate with sensitivity and openness to pursuing the best arguments to the best ethical outcomes.  Want to learn more about relativism?  Check out these sources: 

Are you a relativist? Try the Ethics Updates relativism survey. Read some questions and answers about relativism on AskPhilosophers.org Listen to Prof. Simon Blackburn discuss moral relativism on Philosophy Bites Listen to Prof. Kwame Appiah discuss cosmopolitanism on Philosophy Bites

  Bibliography Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. W.W. Norton, 2007. *Benedict, Ruth. “Anthropology and the Abnormal”, The Journal of General Psychology 10, 1934, 59-82. Gowans, Chris. “Moral Relativism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ Hinman, Lawrence. “Ethical Relativism”, Ethics Updates 11/8/2007http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Relativism/index.asp Ladd, John, ed. Ethical Relativism. Wadsworth, 1973. Melchert, Norman. Who’s to Say? Hackett, 1994 *Midgley, Mary. “Trying Out One’s New Sword”, Heart and Mind. St Martin’s Press,1981. Pojman, Louis. “The Case Against Moral Relativism”, The Moral  Life. Louis Pojman, ed. Oxford University Press, 2004, 166-90. Rachels, James. Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill, 1978. 

Tamir, Yael. “Hands Off Clitoridectomy,” Boston Review, Vol 21, No 3, Summer 1996http://bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Tamir.html (See also: “Judging Other Cultures: Replies to Yael Tamir's ‘Hands off Clitoridectomy’”, Boston Review, Vol 21, No 5, Nov 1996 http://bostonreview.net/BR21.5/br21.5.html) Wong, David. “Relativism”, A Companion to Ethics. Peter Singer, ed. Blackwell, 1991. * Widely anthologized in introductory philosophy textbooks.