In Defense of Relativism

[I do not give permission for others to use this essay in any way, shape, or form without informing me. If you would like to use parts, or refer back to parts, ask me and I will consider.]

Ethical absolutism and ethical relativism are two philosophical concepts which deal with interpreting moral actions and the ideas behind how we can decide what is morally “good” or “bad.” There is no definite answer, but that certainly does not mean that neither are right–to explore each concept is indeed one of the main goals of philosophers and truly the only way we can satisfy ourselves as humans. However, in this essay I will focus mainly on the failings of absolutism in comparison to relativism.

Absolutism can be described as a view held by those who call themselves “absolutists” in which it is believed that there are certain morals which can be considered “right,” despite any contradicting argument. In a sense, these moral rules are “binding on us absolutely . . . [and] allow for no exceptions” (Driver 143). This means that specific moral rules, either spiritually based or otherwise, must be followed, always, with no room to deviate.

For example, if one says that it is wrong to lie, no matter what, then one cannot lie, ever, no matter the situation. If a person commonly accepted as a “good” person’s life were in danger and telling a lie was the only way to save that person’s life, even then it would be morally wrong to tell a lie, according to the definition of absolutism. Absolutism leaves no leeway and no objective views, but only one answer for all situations within the sphere of an absolute rule’s influence.

On the other hand, it is possible that we may view absolutism in a positive light. Can we truly say that certain incidences of rape are justified? Most would say no, that rape is morally unacceptable in any situation whatsoever and therefore wrong. In this case, absolutism makes our judgment much easier and does not allow for any individual to try and justify rape. As one can see, there is no way to deem an absolutist’s view as correct or not, it merely stands as it is, but can be contradicted by differing views, such as relativism.

Ethical relativism is in a sense, the opposite of absolutism. It maintains that there are no absolutes in ethics, and that every situation can be looked at objectively. There are no rules that say something is always “right” or always “wrong.” Relativism also contains a component called cultural relativism which looks at the fact that there are differences between cultures, and that there “is more than one way of living a decent ethical life” (Tasioulas 172).

An example would be that of abortion. An absolutist may say that abortion is always wrong, no questions asked. But a relativist can accept that abortion may be wrong in some cases, as when the mother has no excuse other than her own dislike of children to abort the baby. However, there could be cases deemed morally right, as when a young woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Many relativists might say that it is okay, in this instance, to abort the fetus at an early stage due to circumstances.

The strengths of relativism can be most clearly shown through the weaknesses of absolutism. Because where absolutism fails, relativism shines through.

One of the main failings of absolutism lies in the idea that if two absolute moral rules clash, one of the “absolute” rules must not be absolute. If there are only two options in a situation, and both involve absolute moral rules, it is improbable to assume that the individual could choose both ways; he or she can only choose one. If that individual is an absolutist, he or she would be forced to “break” an absolute rule, therefore breaking absolutism down, as there would be a moral exception to an absolute rule (Rachels 127).

Any moral exception to absolutism shows the validity of relativism, as it allows for exceptions, and in this way, does not create any major ethical dilemma. Instead of viewing two issues in black and white, one can analyze the facts contained in each issue and decide which one is more morally acceptable, instead of having to desperately choose between two absolute statements.

C.A.J. Coady states that “it may be that there are some moral prohibitions that are absolute, but it is important to note that the most plausible version of this outlook holds that there are very few of them” (131). This states that some rules that say such things as “one must not kill innocents” can be absolute, while those along the lines of “one must never lie” are open to debate and are often viewed in a relativistic way.

Absolutism also leaves little room for definition. If we wish to use metaethics in our evaluation of a philosophical problem, we must entirely define the parts which make up an absolutist statement. If we say “do not kill an innocent person,” we must define what a person is before we can make these instant judgments (Driver 145-146). Relativism allows for these definitions–indeed, it promotes such clarity. Without being able to decide what something really means, it is therefore much harder to make an accurate judgment regarding something that is undefined. A definition can go a long way towards making a commonly accepted “correct” decision in the end.

In defense of absolutism, we can affirm that it gives humans a standard off which to base our morals. Without that standard, there is no saying whether we can ever ultimately decide whether anything is right or wrong. Indeed, without some basis of absolutism, everyone would have a reason for any moral decision they made, right or wrong, and it would be impossible to deem that decision morally unacceptable if need be. Genocide and other horrors could be carried out on the basis that they are “right” according to moral relativism.

I tend to agree more with a ethical relativists point of view than an absolutists. For one, I am not religious, and while one does not necessarily need to be religious to be an absolutist, religion certainly follows an absolutist set of moral values.

The divine command theory states that God (or the god(s) of any religion) is all-powerful and essentially incapable of making mistakes. Since God issued the rules by which mankind should follow, they must be perfect since God is perfect and cannot make any mistakes. Therefore, one must follow all of God’s rules without any exceptions. This theory completely utilizes the ideas of absolutism and leaves no room for exceptions, even if very good reasons may justify these exceptions. I cannot blindly follow rules laid down by a God whom I do not believe exists, and for that reason, I follow the idea of relativism for the most part, upon a desire to be able to make choices of my own regarding ethics.

For that reason, and those which I have outlined above in my defense of relativism, I am positive that a relativist point of view is better for me than an absolutist view. It has been beneficial to analyze absolutism, and it has only furthered my liking for relativism. That, I feel, is extraordinarily important in a philosophical way.

Works Cited

Coady, C.A.J. “The Moral Reality in Realism.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2005): 121-136

Driver, Julia. “Moralism.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2005): 137-151.

Rachels, James and Stuart. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007.

Tasioulas, John. “Consequences of Ethical Relativism.” European Journal of Philosophy 6 (1998): 172-203.