Introduction
Many people tend to rely on absolutist categories to think about the world. These individuals believe that their way of living is the only acceptable approach and, therefore, right and true. However, ethical relativism refutes this opinion and states that various cultures have different moral codes. This belief stipulates that there is no universal truth because every standard is culture-bound. However, a closer analysis reveals that ethical relativism is not a sound moral theory, brings more disadvantages, and can impede world peace.
Analyzing Ethical Relativism
At first sight, ethical relativism seems a sound theory that relies on robust arguments. This approach focuses on the fact that different cultures and peoples have different values, customs, and norms. It is helpful to look at a specific example to demonstrate how the theoretical assumption works. In many countries, killing a baby is a morally inappropriate activity. However, the Eskimos consider infanticide an acceptable practice that may be necessary for their tribe’s survival. This example makes ethical relativists believe and state that there is no universal truth and right because local cultural codes determine what is acceptable in every particular area.
However, a closer analysis of the theory reveals its inefficiencies. While it is impossible to deny cultural norms vary in different cultures, one should indicate that universal truth exists. Another example is necessary to prove this point of view. There are some cultural groups that stipulate that the Earth is flat. Similar to the Eskimos, these people have some arguments for believing in this idea. However, it is impossible to mention that these individuals’ opinion represents an excepted variant of the truth because scientific facts prove that the Earth is approximately spherical. That is why one cannot insist that there is no absolute truth regarding other concepts.
Thus, the discussion above presents significant ideas that are necessary to understand the critique of ethical relativism. On the one hand, this theoretical assumption indicates that various cultural groups have different beliefs regarding some aspects and practices. It is necessary to acknowledge this difference to understand that the world is diverse and unequal. On the other hand, ethical relativism fails to present sufficient arguments to claim that there is no universal truth. There are many concepts and ideas that are considered the only possible approach to an issue, and divergence from this norm can be called as an acceptable variant.
Advantages and Disadvantages
The discussion above has presented the critique of ethical relativism, but it is still possible to comment on its advantages. Firstly, this theoretical assumption is beneficial because it welcomes differences that are widespread in the world. As has been mentioned above, this set of beliefs perfectly indicates that various cultures can differently interpret even the questions of life and death. Secondly, one can emphasize that ethical relativism promotes tolerance. It is rational to remember that the present world is highly diverse, and discrepancies can exist among small groups that represent a single society. For example, some Christians believe that it is not right to have sex before marriage, while the majority of the young population suggests that there is nothing morally wrong with this practice. Thus, ethical relativism teaches that it is necessary to acknowledge these differences to live in a shared community.
Simultaneously, one should explain that the given theoretical assumption brings many significant drawbacks. The most significant weakness refers to the fact that it is possible to rely on ethical relativism to justify unfair practices. In particular, it is challenging to deny that apartheid, slavery, and cannibalism are unethical activities in the developed and civilized world. This information denotes that if this theoretical framework had been universally applied, those horrible practices would have existed today.
It is also reasonable to oppose ethical relativism because it prevents progress and moral growth. It is known from the History classes that people of the past believed that racial segregation and slavery were accepted. Since ethical relativism was not a dominating theory, those harmful practices disappeared a long time ago. Finally, it is possible to describe this theoretical assumption as “a fragmentation that may further open up temptations to violence in the name of defending differences.” When people believe that their way of thinking is morally right without any doubt, they can use force to defend or impose their values and norms on other cultural groups. This approach often results in military conflicts, and the following section comments on the connection between ethical relativism and warfare.
Ethical Relativism and World Peace
It has been mentioned above that ethical relativism can help some groups or even nations start and justify their military aggression. For example, it was an excepted norm for various nations of the past to conquer lands and kill their enemies for religious, economic, or any other reasons. The 20th century witnessed the two most devastating wars, and the world was forced to overcome and recover from terrible consequences for many years. In the mid-20th century, there existed an opinion that humanity understood the evil of wars and agreed that military conflicts would not repeat. However, the actual state of affairs has demonstrated that many conflicts started after the end of World War II.
Today, it is possible to say about numerous conflicts scattered across the planet. Hot spots are in Ukraine, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, and other nations. It is also reasonable to acknowledge the tension between the United States and China over Taiwan. Different reasons contributed to the conflicts, but one should highlight that socio-political factors prevail because governments or leaders of combating parties cannot admit that their opinions are morally wrong or even harmful to others. That is why it is possible to suggest that ethical relativism impedes world peace because some nations are sure that the end justifies the means. This statement denotes that these conflicting parties can believe that any action or practice is ethically justified if it helps them achieve their goals.
Conclusion
The essay has comprehensively overviewed the theory of ethical relativism. Analysis of the scientific literature has demonstrated that irrespective of seemingly robust arguments, the theory cannot be considered sound. This approach stipulates that there is no universally accepted truth and ethics, but the framework ignores the fact that such beliefs exist. For example, cannibalism, slavery, and apartheid are morally wrong practices, and every nation that relies on them is considered uncivilized. Simultaneously, the investigation of the theory’s advantages and disadvantages has revealed that weaknesses significantly outweigh all the positive aspects. Even though this assumption promotes tolerance, it also prevents progress and moral growth. Simultaneously, a significant disadvantage implies that nations can use this set of beliefs to justify their military aggression over other peoples. All this information demonstrates that ethical relativism is a compromised theory that can lead to adverse consequences.
Bibliography
Bajarmi, Demush, and Blerina Demiri. “Ethical Relativism and Morality.”ILIRIA International Review 9, no. 1 (2019): 221-230. Web.
Ess, Charles Melvin. “Interpretative Pros Hen Pluralism: From Computer-Mediated Colonization to a Pluralistic Intercultural Digital Ethics.” Philosophy & Technology 33 (2020): 551-569.
International Crisis Group. “10 Conflicts to Watch in 2022,” 1-12. Web.
Rachels, James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” 1-11. Web.