Moral relativism: definition and philosophical principles

Much of Hollywood movies, superhero comics, and fantasy novels talk about the good and about evil as if they were two clearly differentiated things that exist as they are in all parts of the world. world.

However, the reality is much more complex than that: the boundaries between what is right and what is not are often confusing. How to know, then, what is the criterion to know what is correct? Giving an answer to this question is complicated in itself, but it is even more so when something known as moral relativism comes into play.

• Related article: "The 8 branches of Philosophy (and their main thinkers)"

What is moral relativism?

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 not. That 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 it does not exist a universal moral (that is, that is valid regardless of the situation, place or moment).

From this point of view, what we know as "good" as a moral concept (and therefore also what we know as "evil") are social constructs, products of the historical, cultural and technological development of human societies, and do not correspond to natural categories that exist independently of us, human beings morals. Consequently, one of the most disturbing and controversial implications of moral relativism is that no act or event, however cruel and stark it may seem, is evil in an abstract and universal senseIt is only done under socially established premises and consensus.

On the other hand, moral relativism cannot be confused with methodological relativism. This concept is associated with not taking for granted that all human societies start from our system of ideas and values, and is applied to the social sciences. Therefore, it does not have moral implications, but descriptive ones. For example, it can be used to better understand a certain culture and to be able to impose on it our ethical values ​​and our morals.

Examples in the history of philosophy

Moral relativism has been expressed in very different 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 a universally valid code of ethics cannot be found.

Taking that into account, it is not surprising that they used their discursive ability and ease of thought to defend one or another idea depending on who paid them. Philosophy was understood as a game of rhetoric, a set of strategies to convince others.

This attitude and philosophical position caused the sophists to earn the contempt of great thinkers such as Socrates or Plato, who considered that the relativism of the sophists was a kind of mercenary trade of the intelligentsia.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche was not characterized by defending moral relativism, but he was denied the existence of a universal moral system valid for all.

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 it is ruled 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 that our acts.

Later, many other modern philosophers questioned the ontological status of good and evil, considering that they are just social conventions.

Postmodernists

Postmodern philosophers point out that there is no separation between what we would call "objective facts" and the way in which we interpret, which means that they reject the idea of ​​an objective order both when describing reality and when establishing 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 the postmodern ways of understanding the world, according to which there is no a unique 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 relative-based belief system is expressed through three streams.

Description

Moral relativism indicates a situation: that there are several groups with moral systems that contradict each other and that collide head-on. In this way, one or the other ethical system is not justified.

Metaetic position

Starting from moral relativism, something can be affirmed that goes beyond the description of these systems of opposite to each other: that above them there is nothing, and that for that very reason no moral position can be objective.

Normative position

This position is characterized by establishing a norm: all moral systems must be tolerated. Ironically, a rule is used to try to prevent behaviors from being regulated, for which it is often criticized that there are many contradictions in this system.

Bibliographic references:

• Beebe, J.R., (2010), Moral Relativism in Context, Noûs, 44 (4): 691–724.
• Brogaard, B., (2007), Moral Contextualism and Moral Relativism, The Philosophical Quarterly, 58 (232): 385–409.
• Capps, D., M.P. Lynch, and D. Massey, (2009), A Coherent Moral Relativism, Synthese, 166 (2): 413–430.
• Margolis, J., (1991). The Truth About Relativism, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Storig, H. J. (1995). Universal History of Philosophy. Madrid: TECNOS.
• Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2004). Moral Relativism.