[Music] hello and welcome to philosophy by the channel where we discuss and debate different philosophical ideas today we're going to be focusing on some ethics and looking into the theory of moral relativism excellent now moral relativism is quite a broad ethical theory that actually encompasses a number of different ideas however the fundamental and underlying principle of moral relativism is that there is no absolute universal or objective morality it does not exist instead morality is relative to a particular standpoint the truth of moral judgment is relative to a particular society or to a particular time period
this stands in complete opposition to moral objectivism which claims there is such a thing as objective moral truths so four moral relativists when one makes a moral claim there is no universal or objective truth the truth or falsity of any moral claim is solely dependent and relative as to when where and who is saying it in this video we are going to look at why someone would develop a moral relativist position and john and i will look into the strengths of the theory as well as the challenges great let's get started okay so the beginnings
of moral relativism start with descriptive relativism now descriptive relativism is the empirical awareness that there does exist fierce disagreements when it comes to morality this is clear-cut for everyone to see there are moral disagreements from culture to culture from time period to time period morality changes and the moral judgment you express in one continent or country or community can seem perfectly right but in another it is completely wrong yes i understand from there we get to cultural relativism very similar to descriptive relativism however it emphasizes that culture is the defining factor of moral judgments all
our ethical beliefs practices actions everything we hold as moral these are all rooted in the culture we are brought up in and so all morality is completely and solely relative as to what culture it comes from for example monogamy is seen by some cultures as moral and the right thing to do and polygamy is seen as immoral whereas in other cultures polygamy is seen as completely fine and even encouraged contraception can be seen by some cultures as responsible and in others it can be seen as a sin the list goes on and in fact increases
more when you look into cultures of different time periods infanticide slavery child marriages all of these things were completely acceptable once upon a time and now we see them as disgusting immoral evil acts this is because the morality of these things was completely relative to the culture and the time that they came from fascinating and from there this leads us to meta-ethical relativism because of descriptive and cultural relativism we then must agree that there is no absolute or universal truths to any moral claims the truth or falsity of moral judgments are solely dependent on the
culture and the groups of people in that society we have no grounds for preferring one set of moral principles to another we have no grounds for saying one culture's practices or norms are better or worse than another as there is no universal moral truths there is no better or worse there is only different each culture each society will hold that their moral principles are right and in a way they are personally but in a way they are not as no one is objectively right or wrong the truth or falsity of any moral claim judgment or
action is relative to that particular culture not to some universal or absolute truth yes this makes sense okay so now let's look at the strengths of moral relativism as an ethical theory first and foremost it perfectly explains why moral disagreements exist this problem has always been a huge issue for ethicists if there exists universal moral truths then why do people and cultures disagree so much why have philosophers struggle to find an ethical code that everyone agrees to why are there so many moral clashes surely objective morality would have been discovered by now surely all people
would have been able to discover and agree to an absolute moral code moral objectivity seems unreachable and why is this the case the most straightforward and obvious answer is because it does not exist there is no such thing as moral objectivity there is no such thing as an absolute moral truth all we have is different cultures and societies with their own practices and their own norms this is all morality is just the behaviors of different cultures we do not have to stress about finding the moral truth or coming up with the universal behavioral formula as
it does not exist i see furthermore moral relativism better explains the existence of cultural diversity if there was one correct way to act one correct set of moral principles then all cultures would more or less be the same but the fact we have such cultural diversity highlights that there is no universal moral code just cultural relativism interesting and finally moral relativism is the best ethical basis for cultural tolerance if we escape the outlook of seeing some cultures as right or wrong better or worse but just come to see them all as different then we are
in a better position to be more tolerant we will learn to respect all cultures and practices and perhaps we can learn from one another great points you have raised but i see big problems for moral relativism as an ethical theory like what firstly i would argue that you are presupposing that the existence of objective morality would mean everyone would know the moral truth this is a mistake we can still very much have absolute moral truths yet just do not know or have not discovered these truths no i disagree here think about how far we have
come as a human race how much we have discovered and still after all these years we are having moral disagreements this just highlights the fact that there is no objective moral truth i think that is a mistake there is so much we have not discovered yet as a human race i think it is a huge error to just assume we should have discovered moral truths by now and from there you were denying their existence altogether consider this people disagree about the origins of the human race even scientists can disagree about the origins of the human
race just because there is disagreement does not mean there is no absolute truth as to the origins of the human species there is we have just not discovered it yet so just because there are moral disagreements does not in any way shape or form prove there are not universal moral truths there could very well be it's just that we have not discovered them yet i see furthermore i believe moral relativists exaggerate just how much cultures differ in terms of morality really come on i went through just a few differences in cultures but you know there
are so many moral differences between cultures i understand there are moral differences but i am saying there are more moral similarities than differences like what i am pretty sure cold-blooded murder is wrong in near enough every culture theft torture of innocent people the list could go on if you use moral differences as proof of moral relativism then i could use moral similarities as proof of moral objectivism hmm a further objection would a moral relativist have to agree that obvious and blatant immoral acts that were once accepted should have in fact been tolerated would a moral
relativist honestly say that slavery or infanticide as done in the past was in fact moral at the time well i think anyone looking at those actions from a modern perspective would agree that they are wrong but in another time yes they were accepted but even by today's standards suppose there was a specific culture that practiced forced labour the immoral relativist would have no reason to value one side who morally disagree over the other side who accept or promote it as you said according to moral relativists both cultures are no closer to objective truth both cultures
are neither wrong or right just different so the moral relativists would remain apathetic to a culture that promotes slavery yes i see your point this then brings me to my other point moral relativism does not really take into account the disagreements within a culture it claims that morality is relative to culture but to find an entire society who are all homogenous when it comes to morality is very unlikely there are huge moral disagreements within specific cultures so how can moral statements be right or wrong relative to a culture if there is so much difference in
diversity within a culture i think the fact that there is so much moral diversity within cultures further strengthens the idea that there is no objective moral truth and here we can take moral relativism further to the individual level and when we do find such diverse moral judgments we can lean on ethical subjectivism as a theory this theory claims that the truth or falsity of moral judgments depends solely on the attitudes of people so when a person expresses a moral opinion this is either true or false relative to that specific person's moral attitude this is moral
relativism refined down to the individual i cannot agree with this moral truths will become so arbitrary this might as well become a moral skepticism theory how so if two people are looking at the same act at the same time one person says it is moral the other person says it is immoral according to ethical subjectivism both people are right yet they are saying two different things about the same event this makes no sense if two people stand in the same street at the same time one says it's raining the other states it's not raining only
one can be right to say both are right is a contradiction and i feel the same way about the moral case too very good point there are problems with the moral relativist position but equally there are problems with the moral objectivist position how do we account for the moral disagreements and diversity this is still a huge problem i agree maybe it's not as simple as every possible moral judgment is objectively true or false or relative maybe morality is a blend between moral objectivism and moral relativism explain i would argue that there are fundamental objective moral
truths these are the promotion and protection of life freedom and happiness and the minimization or outright elimination of pain and suffering these are objective moral truths you can say they have come from god but it would be easier to just say they are innate evolutionary desires based on our human reality now based off of these objective moral truths we develop our behaviors as to how we can promote life freedom and happiness and eliminate pain and suffering it is these behaviors that become relative to cultures and time periods and individuals so for example cold-blooded murder is
wrong that is an objective moral fact because it goes against the promotion of life and the elimination of pain every sound-minded person would agree with that that's easy but let's look at say arranged marriages one culture may believe that arranged marriages promote happiness as suitable partners are picked with ease whereas another culture would disagree and see arranged marriages as going against one's freedom and increasing emotional pain here is where the morality becomes relative so ultimately there are objective moral truths but in reaching these truths our moral behavior can be considered relative very good point if
you would like the script to this video it is part of the philosophy vibe ethics ebook available on amazon this will be a great help for anyone studying ethics also if you want to support this channel please check out our merch store on teespring some great philosophy themed hoodies t-shirts mugs and more all purchases really help out this channel but that's all the time we have for now thank you for watching we hope you enjoyed the vibe and what does everyone else think who out there is a moral relativist and how best would you defend
your moral position let us know in the comments below don't forget to like and share and for more philosophical debates please subscribe to the channel take care and we look forward to seeing you all soon bye
