In the previous post I outlined the basics of relativism and absolutism, but because I’d already shoved a lot of information down your throat by the end of the post I didn’t think it was a good idea to do the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in the same post. So, here it is. What you’ve all been waiting for, I can tell.

So, let’s have a quick recap of both ethical approaches before we begin…

Relativism is the theory which stated that there are no absolute truths; truth is relative to the subject and can vary from person to person and from society to society. There are no universally valid moral principles and so there is no one true morality. All principles and values are relative to a particular culture and age. Truth is relative.

Absolutism is when things are right or wrong for every human being from an objective point of view and can’t change according to culture. Certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong (right or wrong in themselves). Ethical norms exist independent of human existence.

When you reached the end of the last post you may have already firmly decided which theory you like best, or which you think works better. But did you really consider them? Did you really consider the problems with them and the consequences they have on human morality and behaviour? If not, then I’ll do the thinking for you now, but you still have to get your head around all the pros and cons I’m about to highlight. Hopefully then the cogs in your brain will begin to turn.

So, pull your socks up and let’s first look at the strengths of relativism…

1. Relativists believe in tolerance and respect for other people’s societies. Relativism is the only practical moral philosophy for society today, since mass migration has made a massive difference in societies. It rejects the idea that a group’s moral norms are superior to any other. This respect for diversity produces a peaceful and harmonius society.
2. Relativism rejects moral imperialism (one culture/society forcing their “superior” morals on another culture/society). Most of the 20th Century wars were fought for ideological/cultural reasons. Relativism rejects the unique truthfulness of any ideological position.
3. Language isn’t neutral – culture determines language. Words vary in their meaning from society to society, language to language. Words like “goodness” or “justice”, “truth” or “freedom” mean different things in different parts of the world and at different times in history.
4. Truth lies in the ideas of the masses. “Truth is with the crowd and error with the individual” – Louis Pojman. The selfishness of the individual is weakened by the needs of the group – the views of the crowd filter out the selfishness of the individual. However, groups may not always filter out personal prejudices; they might amplify them. (I think we all know an example that refutes this strength; were the Nazis morally right? Was that crowd doing the ethically right thing because they all believed they were?)
5. With subjective relativism the individual’s character determines their morals. Most ethical theories ignore the personality of the individual. Subjective relativism puts personality to centre stage. But again, this may be a strength or a weakness.

Now, for the weaknesses of relativism…

1. Relativism fails to appreciate that certain moral values are universal. It implies that there can be no real evaluation or criticism of practices such as murder. Just because cultures differ, it doesn’t mean there’s no objective “good”. “Every culture has a concept of murder” – Clyde Kluckhohn
2. Relativism argues that the job of ethics is essentially descriptive (and not prescriptive). If ethics just describes and analyses the customs of different societies it wouldn’t be possible to condemn corrupt or evil actions. There’s got to be a role in ethics for moral judgements. This wouldn’t be possible if the non-judgmental and culturally-sensitive approach is followed.
3. Relativism views culture as the sole influence on human life and therefore on morality. Moral problems are often complex and are determined by a variety of issues. Relativists believe a multicultural society will be tolerant and morally good, as people know more about each other’s cultures. However, this hasn’t been the case in human history, as there have been more than just cultural problems which divide humans.
4. Relativism seems to give little reason for behaving morally except to be socially acceptable.
5. What is the difference between social reform and moral imperialism? Cultural relativists reject any interference by one culture in the morality of another, so would the social reformer be seen as intolerant rather than being a courageous innovator? Moral progress becomes ethical interference and this prevents human progress, so a single society’s culture becomes fixed in the past.

So, are the cogs turning yet? Can you hear the clanking of you brain kicking into action? There’s a lot to think about and consider with regards relativism, so it might help to stare at the wall for a few minutes and really work up a mental sweat, just to get your head round all the pros and cons.

You’ll be relieved to hear that the next section about absolutism is significantly shorter…”Phew!” I hear you say. Well, phew indeed.

Right then, let’s steam ahead and get on with the strengths of absolutism…

1. Morality isn’t based on individual/group preferences, but rather on absolute and universal values.
2. Absolutism allows different societies to share common values.
3. It gives authority to human rights legislation, which is designed to protect people.
4. It allows one society to evaluate the morality of another society; a society can judge actions which are wrong and act on that judgement.
5. Absolutism provides a fixed ethical code which gives clear moral judgments in situations where there’s a need for ethical guidance.

And now for the weaknesses of absolutism…

1. Absolutism doesn’t take into account historical development. An absolutist theory has no place for the evolutionary nature of humanity in general, and of moral theories in particular.
2. It doesn’t take into account cultural difference – absolutists can seem intolerant of cultural diversity.
3. It doesn’t take into account individual lifestyles.
4. It doesn’t consider the situation. Absolutism ignores the circumstances in which ethical judgements are made.
5. How do we actually know what absolute morals are, as all sources of morality are open to human interpretation?

There, I told you that section would be shorter, didn’t I? It’s all over now. You won’t have to hear about relativism or absolutism for a while now (maybe…), so you can put your feet up and relax. After this, of course…

Food for thought:

1. Is relativism an impossible ethical system? Is it possible for there to be no moral truths? If not, does the Declaration of Human Rights fail?
2. Can either ethical system be possible, just by itself?
3. Have you changed your mind about which one you like better/which one you think works better? If so, why?

In the next post, we’ll be going back to Philosophy and delving into the realm of “the nature of God”. It’s interesting stuff, so be there or be square!