Arguments For Moral Relativism

871 Words2 Pages

For a long time, people have been questioning what morals are. They have questioned whether morals have any intrinsic value and if they do, are there moral codes that apply to everyone. One of the approaches to this question is moral relativism. Moral Relativism is the idea that moral standards have intrinsic value, but are not universal or objective. Moral truths are based on either cultural of individual beliefs. Moral relativists believe that moral claims can neither be true nor false, therefore are not objective. There are a few arguments that support moral relativism. First J. L. Mackie outlines two main arguments that support moral relativism. The first one is the argument from relativity. Mackie argues that moral views differ based on culture, which are influenced …show more content…

In his essay, Harry Gensler has four main arguments against cultural relativism. While many people find cultural relativism pleasing, due to its cultural tolerance, social relativism forces individuals to conform by the social standards that their culture has agreed upon, because that is what is considered “good”. Cultural relativism “is intolerant toward minority views (which are automatically wrong)” (Gensler 187). By being tolerant towards all cultural views, you become open to intolerance, if that is what your society approves of. This leads into Gensler’s second argument. If you lived in a Nazi-like society, then you would be forced to accept racism and genocide, even if you disapproved of it with all your heart. Moreover, if your society approved of racism, then you would have to conform to racism and, therefore, be intolerant to other cultures. This creates a sort of paradox. This goes along with Gensler’s third argument, which is that a person would be forced to conform to everything their culture claims is right or

Open Document