MORAL RELATIVITY AND ETHICAL ABSOLUTISM

MORAL RELATIVITY AND ETHICAL ABSOLUTISM
What is moral relativity? What is ethical absolutism? While they may seem familiar, what sets them apart? Moral relativity is moral principles that are not absolute, but are instead set by society by looking at cultural, historical and individual perspectives. Ethical absolutism is moral principles that are universal and apply to each and every person, regardless of culture and context. Anthropology, the systematic study of humanity, our evolutionary origins, cultural diversity, and social structure in both the past and the present helps us observe that moral norms are shaped by cultural context and are not universally fixed.

HISTORY
Ancient Greek philosophers known as the Sophists famously declared that moral values are not absolute and vary depending on person to person or culture to culture. Protagoras, a Greek philosopher, believed that there are no objective moral truths, and that different cultures or people have different views on what is considered “right” or “wrong”. In contrast, Aristotle argued that there are universal principles of morality inherent in humans that lets them decide what is good or bad based on their own reasoning.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Some advantages of moral relativity are its flexibility, adaptation even in very diverse cultures and contexts, etc. A disadvantage is that it can justify harmful practices like gender discrimination, race, and others if they are culturally accepted. If something bad like child labor is universally agreed upon, it becomes very difficult to condemn such bad practices just because people agree that it is moral.  Some advantages of ethical absolutism are that there are universal moral truths, for example, it is wrong to torture someone regardless of a society’s laws or cultural views. Ethical absolutism offers clear and consistent moral guidelines, as in, there are no fixed morals and one can use their own reasoning in order to determine them. This gives people clarity in deciding what is “good” or “bad”, no matter which society they are in. Universal human rights are provided in ethical absolutism and under no circumstances, will that be undermined regardless of a society’s views or cultures. Like in the same bad practices’ scenario mentioned earlier, even though people agree that it is moral, ethical absolutism has a rigid stand on such a thing and disallows it no matter what cultures or people think as it is universal. A disadvantage is that there is potential for conflict as people impose their own ethics on each other, and that may lead to conflict between them.

THE MIDDLE GROUND: MORAL UNIVERSALISM
There is a middle ground. That middle ground is moral universalism. Moral universalism is the idea that some universal moral principles from ethical absolutism can be adapted to various cultural contexts. By using this method of incorporating moral relativity and ethical absolutism with each other, we can get the best of both worlds.

CONCLUSION
The debate between moral relativity and ethical absolutism still continues to shape discussions all across the world in philosophy, politics and global ethics. While moral relativity emphasizes cultural diversity and personal perspectives, ethical absolutism upholds universal moral truths. With global issues like human rights and climate change becoming more pressing, understanding both frameworks can help navigate complex moral decisions. While there is a middle ground, moral universalism, which seeks to balance cultural understanding with shared ethical principles, this philosophical debate is far from over.