Moral Relativism: Definition And Philosophical Principles
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 are in all parts of the world.
However, the reality is much more complex than that: The boundaries between what is right and what is not are often confusing How do we know, then, what is the criterion for knowing what is correct? 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 we call moral relativism is an ethical theory according to which 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, that is, equally valid or invalid.
A moral system cannot be judged from a point of view external to it because there is no universal morality (that is, one that is valid regardless of the situation, place or time).
From this point of view, what we know as “good” as a moral concept (and consequently, also what we know as “evil”) are social constructs, products of the historical, cultural and technological development of human societies, and They do not correspond to natural categories that exist independently of us, moral beings. Therefore, one of the most disturbing and controversial implications of moral relativism is that No act or event, no matter how cruel and stark it may seem to us, is bad in an abstract and universal sense it is only so under socially established premises and consensus.
On the other hand, moral relativism cannot be confused with methodological relativism. This concept is associated with not assuming that all human societies are based on our system of ideas and values, and is applied to the social sciences. Therefore, it does not have moral implications, but rather descriptive ones. For example, it can be used to better understand a certain culture and be able to impose our ethical values and morals on it.
Examples in the history of philosophy
Moral relativism has been expressed in very diverse ways throughout history. These are some examples.
The sophists
One of the best-known cases of moral relativism is found in the sophists of Ancient Greece. This group of philosophers understood that no objective truth can be known and no universally valid ethical code can be found either
Taking that into account, it is not surprising that they used their discursive ability and ease of thinking to defend one idea or another depending on who was paying them. Philosophy was therefore understood as a game of rhetoric, a set of strategies to convince others.
This attitude and philosophical position earned the sophists the contempt of great thinkers such as Socrates and Plato, who considered that the relativism of the sophists was a kind of mercenary profession of the intellectuality.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche was not characterized by defending moral relativism, but he did denied the existence of a universal moral system valid for everyone
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 we rule out that there is something above the functioning of the cosmos, that is, if faith disappears, morality also disappears, because there is no vector that indicates the direction our actions should take.
Later, many other modern philosophers questioned the ontological status of good and evil, considering them to be just social conventions.
The postmoderns
Postmodern philosophers point out that there is no separation between what we would call “objective facts” and the way in which we interpret them, which means that they reject the idea of an objective order both when describing reality and when it comes to establish 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 sample of moral relativism.
This fits well with the type 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 reflected in the concepts of good and bad.
The facets of moral relativism
This system of beliefs based on what is relative is expressed through three aspects.
Description
Moral relativism points out a situation: that there are several groups with moral systems that contradict each other and collide head-on. In this way, we do not go into justifying one or another ethical system.
Metaethical position
Starting from moral relativism, we can affirm something that goes beyond the description of these opposing moral systems: that there is nothing above them, and that for this very reason no moral position can be objective.
Normative position
This position is characterized by establishing a standard: all moral systems must be tolerated. Ironically, a rule is used to try to prevent behaviors from being regulated, which is why it is often criticized that there are many contradictions in this system.
