Moral Relativism vs. Moral Realism

I choose to focus on moral theories for my Meaning of Life final project because I’ve always thought it would be interesting to learn about what is right or wrong. Morality is a very important branch of philosophy because it studies the best way for humans to live their lives. At the same time I find it very difficult to understand or take sides with the two views I am about to discuss: moral relativism or moral realism. In this paper I will explain what each of the different views of morality are proposing and argue for the one I think makes the stronger argument. Let us first define what morality is. Morality is generally defined as a code of conduct or belief which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Moral relativism and moral realism are two views on what morality is. Moral relativism is the view that morality depends on opinion in social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. On the other hand, moral realism is the view that morality does not depend on opinion and reflects objective and/or universal moral truths that we should all follow. I personally agree with moral realism, more than moral relativism.

Argument for Relativists: As I mentioned, relativists believe that moral codes and rules depend on your point of view. (For examples in this essay I will focus mainly on cultural relativism). So if a culture thinks doing (X) is right in their culture, then they are right according to relativism. If another culture thinks doing (Y) is right in their culture, then they are also right according to relativism. But lets say that (X) and (Y ) interfere, and the two cultures disagree with each other. According to Relativism, neither culture is more right then the other. Neither moral code has more power than the other. The relativist is being fair by saying that each culture’s idea is respected equally. There is no better moral code. With this example, relativists can say there is no universal right or wrong, good or bad, and it all depends on your point of view or your culture. Therefore, a relativist can say there is no universal good or bad in and of itself.

Objection

Let us observe some problems that arise if there is no universal good or bad. If there is no good or bad, people may have more freedom to do selfish things, and do things that benefit only them. Suppose a culture believes that eating babies and cannibalism, racism, and sexism are alright in their culture. According to relativism, if no culture has more power over another, and there is no moral universal good or bad, other cultures with beliefs against them have no right to interfere with them. Therefore, it is for our own good to state that having a universal moral code is the better option.