Difference Between Relativism And Moral Objectivism

Which is which?

In the attempt to explain morality, two prominent theories exist- moral relativism and moral objectivism. Morality in a sense is difficult to explain, both theories attempt to shed a bit of light in way to break down its complexity. Moral Relativism argues in the view that morality exists only due to the fact that it is relative, or in respect to, cultural or individual beliefs. In a sense, it is up to the people to determine what is right and wrong. On the other hand, moral objectivism views that morality is not parallel, or relative, to one 's beliefs. That it is independent and not subjective to one 's interpretations, thus it is objective and universal moral facts exist. Louis. P. Pojman, an American philosopher and professor,

Moral objectivity is the rejection of enthnocentricism, or belief that one’s culture is superior than others. In short, one’s cultural beliefs cannot fundamentally be legitimate morals in the sense that they do not have to follow the “objective” morals. For example, Pojman supports a view stating that morals are universal, that they are "objective" in regard to it being that it doesn 't matter about what a culture defines as moral or immoral, that certain morals are undebatable. Such as for example, torturing children for fun is wrong. This is objectively true no matter what the world says otherwise; another example being that some still think the Earth is flat. In other words, moral objectivism states that "moral standards are true or correct for everybody"2. Thus moral objectivists tend to look at morals as absolutes. Pojman argued that humans are social creatures and that as humans, we did not want to live as "hermits"(first edition, 33), thus certain agreements must be made in order to attain community. Explaining further that agreements are "human nature" and that agreements are at the "core" of morality, as well as stating that to "flourish as a person" we agree to these moral codes in order to maintain harmony and peace. Morals in an evolutionary perspective, allow humans to survive. Such as for example, murder or killing other humans deemed as immoral or wrong. Pojman gives the example of serial murder Ted Bundy, who in his mind believed that killing people was O.K because it made him happy. He believed that killing and raping others is completely fine because those were his morals and what he personally believed in. This disturbs the social harmony and a moral objectivist would beg the question of whether it is right to murder and rape others because one or culture views it as acceptable. Same question can be asked about Hitler, as Pojman did, does it make it acceptable and justifiable that because Hitler and the