Moral relativism - Wikipedia Moral relativism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Philosophical positions about the differences in moral judgments across peoples and cultures This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Moral relativism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often labeled simply as a relativist for short. In detail, descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgement being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1] Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist.[2] Said concepts of the different intellectual movements involve considerable nuance and cannot be treated as absolute descriptions. Descriptive relativists do not necessarily adopt meta-ethical relativism. Moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism.[3] American philosopher Richard Rorty in particular has argued that the label of being a "relativist" has become warped and turned into a sort of pejorative. He has written specifically that thinkers labeled as such usually simply believe "that the grounds for choosing between such [philosophical] opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", not that every single conceptual idea is as valid as any other. In this spirit, Rorty has lamented that "philosophers have... become increasingly isolated from the rest of culture."[4] Moral relativism is generally posed as a direct antithesis to "moral idealism" (also known as "ethical idealism" and "principled idealism"). Through an idealistic framework, examples being that of Kantianism and other doctrines advocated during the Enlightenment era, certain behavior seen as contrary to higher ideals often gets labeled as not only morally wrong but fundamentally irrational. However, like many fuzzy concepts, the distinction between idealist and relativist viewpoints is frequently vague.[citation needed] Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years across a variety of contexts during the history of civilization. Arguments of particular notability have been made in areas such as ancient Greece and historical India while discussions have continued to the present day. Besides the material created by philosophers, the concept has additionally attracted attention in diverse fields including art, religion, and science.[citation needed] Contents 1 Variations 1.1 Descriptive 1.2 Meta-ethical 1.3 Normative 2 History 3 Arguments for meta-ethical relativism 3.1 Scientific 3.1.1 Morality and evolution 3.2 Literary 4 Criticisms of meta-ethical relativism 4.1 Philosophical 4.1.1 R. M. Hare 4.1.2 Walter Terence Stace 4.1.3 Philosophical poverty 4.1.4 Other criticism 4.2 Religious 4.2.1 Roman Catholicism 4.2.2 Buddhism 5 See also 6 References 7 Bibliography 8 External links Variations[edit] Descriptive[edit] Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[5] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards. Descriptive relativists do not necessarily advocate the tolerance of all behavior in light of such disagreement; that is to say, they are not necessarily normative relativists. Likewise, they do not necessarily make any commitments to the semantics, ontology, or epistemology of moral judgement; that is, not all descriptive relativists are meta-ethical relativists.[citation needed] Descriptive relativism is a widespread position in academic fields such as anthropology and sociology, which simply admit that it is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in play in all historical and cultural circumstances.[6] Meta-ethical[edit] Meta-ethical moral relativism is unpopular among philosophers; many are quite critical of it,[5] though there are several contemporary philosophers who support it.[5] Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[5] The American anthropologist William Graham Sumner was an influential advocate of this view. He argues in his 1906 work Folkways that what people consider right and wrong is shaped entirely - not primarily - by the traditions, customs, and practices of their culture. Moreover, since in his analysis of human understanding there cannot be any higher moral standard than that provided by the local morals of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's morals could possibly be justified.[citation needed] Meta-ethical relativists are, first, descriptive relativists: they believe that, given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what a person ought to do or prefer (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, they argue that one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using any available independent standard of evaluation—any appeal to a relevant standard would always be merely personal or at best societal.[citation needed] This view contrasts with moral universalism, which argues that, even though well-intentioned persons disagree, and some may even remain unpersuadable (e.g. someone who is closed-minded), there is still a meaningful sense in which an action could be more "moral" (morally preferable) than another; that is, they believe there are objective standards of evaluation that seem worth calling "moral facts"—regardless of whether they are universally accepted.[citation needed] Normative[edit] Normative moral relativists believe not only the meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do. Normative moral relativists argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises.[7] Meta-ethical relativism seems to eliminate the normative relativist's ability to make prescriptive claims. In other words, normative relativism may find it difficult to make a statement like "we think it is moral to tolerate behaviour" without always adding "other people think intolerance of certain behaviours is moral". [8]Philosophers like Russell Blackford even argue that intolerance is, to some degree, important. As he puts it, "we need not adopt a quietism about moral traditions that cause hardship and suffering. Nor need we passively accept the moral norms of our own respective societies, to the extent that they are ineffective or counterproductive or simply unnecessary".[9] That is, it is perfectly reasonable (and practical) for a person or group to defend their subjective values against others, even if there is no universal prescription or morality. We can also criticize other cultures for failing to pursue even their own goals effectively.[citation needed] The moral relativists may also still try to make sense of non-universal statements like "in this country, it is wrong to do X" or even "to me, it is right to do Y".[7] Moral universalists argue further that their system often does justify tolerance, and that disagreement with moral systems does not always demand interference, and certainly not aggressive interference.[7] For example, the utilitarian might call another society's practice 'ignorant' or 'less moral', but there would still be much debate about courses of action (e.g. whether to focus on providing better education, or technology, etc.).[citation needed] History[edit] While British philosopher David Hume did not advocate for relativist views of morality per se and held nuanced opinions, his thinking has been widely influential in the development of relativism.[citation needed] Moral relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years. For example, the ancient Jaina Anekantavada principle of Mahavira (c. 599–527 BC) states that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth;[10][11] and the Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 481–420 BC) famously asserted that "man is the measure of all things".[12][13] The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–420 BC) observed that each society regards its own belief system and way of doing things as better than all others. Sextus Empiricus and other ancient Pyrrhonist philosophers denied the existence of objective morality.[14] In the early modern era Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) notably held that nothing is inherently good or evil.[15] The 18th-century Enlightenment philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) serves in several important respects as the father both of modern emotivism and of moral relativism, though Hume himself did not espouse relativism. He distinguished between matters of fact and matters of value, and suggested that moral judgments consist of the latter, for they do not deal with verifiable facts obtained in the world, but only with our sentiments and passions. But Hume regarded some of our sentiments as universal. He famously denied that morality has any objective standard, and suggested that the universe remains indifferent to our preferences and our troubles.[citation needed] Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) believed that we have to assess the value of our values since values are relative to one's goals and one's self. He emphasized the need to analyze our moral values and how much impact they may have on us. The problem with morality, according to Nietzsche, is that those who were considered "good" were the powerful nobles who had more education, and considered themselves better than anyone below their rank. Thus, what is considered good is relative. A "good man" is not questioned on whether or not there is a "bad", such as temptations, lingering inside him and he is considered to be more important than a man who is considered "bad" who is considered useless to making the human race better because of the morals we have subjected ourselves to. But since what is considered good and bad is relative, the importance and value we place on them should also be relative. He proposed that morality itself could be a danger.[16] Nietzsche believed that morals should be constructed actively, making them relative to who we are and what we, as individuals, consider to be true, equal, good and bad, etc. instead of reacting to moral laws made by a certain group of individuals in power.[17] One scholar, supporting an anti-realist interpretation, concludes that "Nietzsche's central argument for anti-realism about value is explanatory: moral facts don't figure in the 'best explanation' of experience, and so are not real constituents of the objective world. Moral values, in short, can be 'explained away.'"[18] It is certain that Nietzsche criticizes Plato's prioritization of transcendence as the Forms. The Platonist view holds that what is 'true', or most real, is something which is other-worldly while the (real) world of experience is like a mere 'shadow' of the Forms, most famously expressed in Plato's allegory of the cave. Nietzsche believes that this transcendence also had a parallel growth in Christianity, which prioritized life-denying moral qualities such as humility and obedience through the church. (See Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, etc.)[citation needed] Anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1887–1948) have cautioned observers against ethnocentricism—using the standards of their own culture to evaluate their subjects of study. Benedict said that transcendent morals do not exist—only socially constructed customs do (see cultural relativism); and that in comparing customs, the anthropologist "insofar as he remains an anthropologist ... is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other".[citation needed] To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values could exist. This led some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist Edward Westermarck (1862–1939) ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He portrayed all moral ideas as subjective judgments that reflect one's upbringing. He rejected G.E. Moore's (1873–1958) ethical intuitionism—in vogue during the early part of the 20th century, and which identified moral propositions as true or false, and known to us through a special faculty of intuition—because of the obvious differences in beliefs among societies, which he said provided evidence of the lack of any innate, intuitive power.[citation needed] Arguments for meta-ethical relativism[edit] Scientific[edit] Morality and evolution[edit] See also: Evolution of morality Some evolutionary biologists believe that morality is a natural phenomenon that evolves by natural selection.[19] In this case, morality is defined as the set of relative social practices that promote the survival and successful reproduction of the species, or even multiple cooperating species.[20] Literary[edit] The literary perspectivism begins at the different versions of the Greek myths. Symbolism created multiple suggestions for a vers. Structuralism teaches us the polysemy of the poems.[citation needed] Examples of relativistic literary works[citation needed]: Gogol's Dead Souls; The Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell; Raymond Queneau's Zazie dans le métro. Or Nuria Perpinya's twenty literary interpretations of the Odyssey. Criticisms of meta-ethical relativism[edit] Philosophical[edit] R. M. Hare[edit] See also: Universal prescriptivism Some philosophers, for example R. M. Hare (1919–2002), argue that moral propositions remain subject to human logical rules, notwithstanding the absence of any factual content, including those subject to cultural or religious standards or norms. Thus, for example, they contend that one cannot hold contradictory ethical judgments. This allows for moral discourse with shared standards, notwithstanding the descriptive properties or truth conditions of moral terms. They do not affirm or deny that moral facts exist, only that human logic applies to our moral assertions; consequently, they postulate an objective and preferred standard of moral justification, albeit in a very limited sense. Nevertheless, according to Hare, human logic shows the error of relativism in one very important sense (see Hare's Sorting out Ethics). Hare and other philosophers also point out that, aside from logical constraints, all systems treat certain moral terms alike in an evaluative sense. This parallels our treatment of other terms such as less or more, which meet with universal understanding and do not depend upon independent standards (for example, one can convert measurements). It applies to good and bad when used in their non-moral sense, too; for example, when we say, "this is a good wrench" or "this is a bad wheel". This evaluative property of certain terms also allows people of different beliefs to have meaningful discussions on moral questions, even though they may disagree about certain "facts".[citation needed] Walter Terence Stace[edit] "Ethical Relativity" is the topic of the first two chapters in The Concept of Morals, in which Walter Terence Stace argues against moral absolutism, but for moral universalism.[21][22] Philosophical poverty[edit] Critics propose that moral relativism fails because it rejects basic premises of discussions on morality, or because it cannot arbitrate disagreement. Many critics, including Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality, since they seem to be rejecting an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason. Practically speaking, such critics will argue that meta-ethical relativism may amount to moral nihilism, or else incoherence.[23] These critics argue specifically that the moral relativists reduce the extent of their input in normative moral discussions to either rejecting the very having of the discussion, or else deeming both disagreeing parties to be correct. For instance, the moral relativist can only appeal to preference to object to the practice of murder or torture by individuals for hedonistic pleasure.[24] This accusation that relativists reject widely held terms of discourse is similar to arguments used against other "discussion-stoppers" like some forms of solipsism or the rejection of induction.[citation needed] Philosopher Simon Blackburn made a similar criticism,[25] and explains that moral relativism fails as a moral system simply because it cannot arbitrate disagreements.[26] Other criticism[edit] Some arguments come when people question which moral justifications or truths are said to be relative. Because people belong to many groups based on culture, race, religion, etc., it is difficult to claim that the values of the group have authority for the members. A part of meta-ethical relativism is identifying which group of people those truths are relative to. Another component is that many people belong to more than one group. The beliefs of the groups that a person belongs to may be fundamentally different, and so it is hard to decide which are relative and which win out. A person practicing meta-ethical relativism would not necessarily object to either view, but develop an opinion and argument.[27] Religious[edit] Roman Catholicism[edit] See also: Relativism § Catholic Church and relativism Catholic and some secular intellectuals attribute the perceived post-war decadence of Europe to the displacement of absolute values by moral relativism. Pope Benedict XVI, Marcello Pera and others have argued that after about 1960, Europeans massively abandoned many traditional norms rooted in Christianity and replaced them with continuously evolving relative moral rules. In this view, sexual activity has become separated from procreation, which led to a decline in the importance of families and to depopulation.[28] The most authoritative response to moral relativism from the Catholic perspective can be found in Veritatis Splendor, an encyclical by Pope John Paul II. Many of the main criticisms of moral relativism by the Catholic Church relate largely to modern controversies, such as elective abortion. Buddhism[edit] Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, has written: "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view ... threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."[29] See also[edit] Atheistic existentialism Axiology – The philosophical study of value Cultural relativism De gustibus non est disputandum – Latin maxim that there is no accounting for taste Ethical egoism – Ethical position that moral agents should act in their own self-interest Ethical intuitionism Ethical subjectivism Moral nihilism Secular ethics – Branch of moral philosophy Situational ethics – Takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically References[edit] ^ "Moral Relativism". Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved 2020-05-27. ^ "Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 2020-05-27. ^ Gowans, Chris (2019), "Moral Relativism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-05-28 ^ Rorty, Richard (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 166–169. ISBN 0816610649. ^ a b c d Swoyer, Chris (February 22, 2003). "Relativism". Retrieved May 10, 2010. ^ Baghramian, Maria; Carter, J.Adam (2020-09-21). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Relativism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2020-12-13. ^ a b c Gowans, Chris (15 October 2017). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ^ Witenberg, Rivka T. "Tolerance is more than putting up with things – it's a moral virtue". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-05-28. ^ at the end of his review at http://jetpress.org/v21/blackford3.htm ^ Dundas, Paul (2002) p. 231 ^ Koller, John M. (July, 2000) pp. 400–07 ^ "Protagoras | Greek philosopher". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-05-28. ^ "Protagoras of Abdera: Of All Things Man Is The Measure". Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2020-05-28. ^ Sextus Empiricus Outlines of Pyrrhonism Book III, Chapter 21 ^ Kelley L. Ross (1999). "Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)". History of Philosophy As I See It. Retrieved 2009-12-07. ^ Smith, Douglas (2008). Friedrich Nietzsche. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 362–363. ^ Spinks, Lee (2003). Friedrich Nietzsche. Florence, KY: Routledge. pp. 5. ^ Brian Leiter, "Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy" article link at Stanford Encyclopedia ^ Joyce, Richard (2006). The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-10112-7. evolution of morality joyce. ^ Shermer, Michael (2004). "Transcendent Morality". The Science of Good and Evil. ISBN 0-8050-7520-8. Given this presupposition, it seems reasonable to be both a transcendentalist and an empiricist, or what I call a transcendent empiricist. ^ Stace, Walter T. (1975) [1937]. The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company. p. 67. ISBN 0-8446-2990-1. ^ Baghramian, Maria; Carter, J. Adam (2019), "Relativism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-05-28 ^ "Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 2020-05-28. ^ "Reasonable Doubts Podcast, Ibn Warraq interviews "Defending the West" and "What the Koran Really Says"". Archived from the original on 2009-11-18. ^ "Simon Blackburn on Moral Relativism". philosophy bites. ^ Blackburn, Simon (1998). "Review of Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 58 (1): 195–198. doi:10.2307/2653640. ISSN 0031-8205. JSTOR 2653640. ^ Gowans, Chris (2015-01-01). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Moral Relativism (Fall 2015 ed.). ^ Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, Marcello Pera, Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam (Basic Books, 2006. ISBN 0-465-00634-5). ^ Bhikkhu Bodhi, "A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence" article link at Access to Insight Bibliography[edit] Guy Ankerl, Global Communication without Universal Civilization. vol I: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. (Geneva, INUPRESS, 2000. ISBN 2-88155-004-5) Joxe Azurmendi 1998: "The violence and the search for new values" in Euskal Herria krisian, (Elkar, 1999), pp. 11–116. ISBN 84-8331-572-6 Kurt Baier, "Difficulties in the Emotive-Imperative Theory" in Paul W Taylor (editor): The Moral Judgement: Readings in Contemporary Meta-Ethics Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963 Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (Mentor) Panayot Butchvarov, "Skepticism in Ethics" (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1989). Ronald F. Duska, "What's the Point of a Business Ethics Course?", 1 Business Ethics Quarterly 335-352(1991), reprinted in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), pp. 11–21. R.M. Hare, Sorting out Ethics (Oxford University Press) Gilbert Harman & Judith Jarvis Thomson, Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Blackwell Publishing), 1996. Sterling Harwood, "Taking Ethics Seriously -- Moral Relativism versus Moral Realism" in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), pp. 2–4. Sterling Harwood, "Against MacIntyre's Relativistic Communitarianism" in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), pp. 5–10. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp (Oxford University Press) G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica (Cambridge University Press) Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism" in Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre, ed. by Walter Kaufmann (World Publishing Company) Walter Terence Stace, The Concept of Morals, (The MacMillan Company, 1937, reprinted, 1975 by Permission of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., (Macmillan Publishers), ISBN 0-8446-2990-1), See Chapters 1 and 2 entitled "Ethical Relativity", pp 1–68. Leo Strauss, The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. Thomas L. Pangle (University of Chicago Press) Edward Westermarck, The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas Macmillan, 1906. Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Harvard University Press) David B. Wong, Moral Relativity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986), 248 pages. Paul Julian. Minimal Truth, Moral Conflict and Metaethical Relativism. 2006. External links[edit] Wikiquote has quotations related to: Moral relativism Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Moral Relativism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Moral Relativism entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Living with Relativism v t e Human rights Humans' Children's Intersex Women's Fundamental concepts and philosophies Natural law Positive law Sovereignty Universal jurisdiction Distinctions Claim rights and liberty rights Individual and group rights Natural and legal rights Negative and positive rights Aspects Corporal punishment Organizations List of human rights organisations National human rights institutions By continent Africa Asia Europe North America Oceania South America Related History of human rights List of human rights articles by country List of human rights awards Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights v t e Ethics Normative ethics Consequentialism Utilitarianism Deontology Kantian ethics Ethics of care Existentialist ethics Particularism Pragmatic ethics Role ethics Virtue ethics Eudaimonism Applied ethics Animal ethics Bioethics Business ethics Discourse ethics Engineering ethics Environmental ethics Legal ethics Machine ethics Media ethics Medical ethics Nursing ethics Professional ethics Sexual ethics Ethics of artificial intelligence Ethics of eating meat Ethics of technology Ethics of terraforming Ethics of uncertain sentience Meta-ethics Cognitivism Moral realism Ethical naturalism Ethical non-naturalism Ethical subjectivism Ideal observer theory Divine command theory Error theory Non-cognitivism Emotivism Expressivism Quasi-realism Universal prescriptivism Moral universalism Value monism – Value pluralism Moral relativism Moral nihilism Moral rationalism Ethical intuitionism Moral skepticism Concepts Autonomy Axiology Conscience Consent Equality Free will Good and evil Good Evil Happiness Ideal Immorality Justice Liberty Morality Norm Freedom Suffering or Pain Stewardship Sympathy Trust Value Virtue Wrong full index... Philosophers Laozi Socrates Plato Aristotle Diogenes Valluvar Cicero Confucius Augustine of Hippo Mencius Mozi Xunzi Thomas Aquinas Baruch Spinoza David Hume Immanuel Kant Georg W. F. Hegel Arthur Schopenhauer Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Søren Kierkegaard Henry Sidgwick Friedrich Nietzsche G. E. Moore Karl Barth Paul Tillich Dietrich Bonhoeffer Philippa Foot John Rawls John Dewey Bernard Williams J. L. Mackie G. E. M. Anscombe William Frankena Alasdair MacIntyre R. M. Hare Peter Singer Derek Parfit Thomas Nagel Robert Merrihew Adams Charles Taylor Joxe Azurmendi Christine Korsgaard Martha Nussbaum more... Related articles Casuistry Christian ethics Descriptive ethics Ethics in religion Evolutionary ethics Feminist ethics History of ethics Ideology Islamic ethics Jewish ethics Moral psychology Philosophy of law Political philosophy Population ethics Social philosophy Category v t e Philosophy Branches Traditional Metaphysics Epistemology Logic Ethics Aesthetics Philosophy of... Action Color Culture Design Music Film Cosmology Education Environment Geography Happiness History Human nature Humor Feminism Language Law Life Literature Mathematics Medicine Healthcare Psychiatry Mind Pain Psychology Perception Philosophy Religion Science Physics Chemistry Biology Sexuality Social science Business Culture Economics Politics Society Space and time Sport Technology Artificial intelligence Computer science Engineering Information War Schools of thought By era Ancient Western Medieval Renaissance Early modern Modern Contemporary Ancient Chinese Agriculturalism Confucianism Legalism Logicians Mohism Chinese naturalism Neotaoism Taoism Yangism Chan Greco-Roman Aristotelianism Atomism Cynicism Cyrenaics Eleatics Eretrian school Epicureanism Hermeneutics Ionian Ephesian Milesian Megarian school Neoplatonism Peripatetic Platonism Pluralism Presocratic Pyrrhonism Pythagoreanism Neopythagoreanism Sophistic Stoicism Indian Hindu Samkhya Nyaya Vaisheshika Yoga Mīmāṃsā Ājīvika Ajñana Cārvāka Jain Anekantavada Syādvāda Buddhist Śūnyatā Madhyamaka Yogacara Sautrāntika Svatantrika Persian Mazdakism Mithraism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism Medieval European Christian Augustinianism Scholasticism Thomism Scotism Occamism Renaissance humanism East Asian Korean Confucianism Edo neo-Confucianism Neo-Confucianism Indian Vedanta Acintya bheda abheda Advaita Bhedabheda Dvaita Nimbarka Sampradaya Shuddhadvaita Vishishtadvaita Navya-Nyāya Islamic Averroism Avicennism Illuminationism ʿIlm al-Kalām Sufi Jewish Judeo-Islamic Modern People Cartesianism Kantianism Neo-Kantianism Hegelianism Marxism Spinozism 0 Anarchism Classical Realism Liberalism Collectivism Conservatism Determinism Dualism Empiricism Existentialism Foundationalism Historicism Holism Humanism Anti- Idealism Absolute British German Objective Subjective Transcendental Individualism Kokugaku Materialism Modernism Monism Naturalism Natural law Nihilism New Confucianism Neo-scholasticism Pragmatism Phenomenology Positivism Reductionism Rationalism Social contract Socialism Transcendentalism Utilitarianism Contemporary Analytic Applied ethics Analytic feminism Analytical Marxism Communitarianism Consequentialism Critical rationalism Experimental philosophy Falsificationism Foundationalism / Coherentism Internalism and externalism Logical positivism Legal positivism Normative ethics Meta-ethics Moral realism Quinean naturalism Ordinary language philosophy Postanalytic philosophy Quietism Rawlsian Reformed epistemology Systemics Scientism Scientific realism Scientific skepticism Transactionalism Contemporary utilitarianism Vienna Circle Wittgensteinian Continental Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Feminist Frankfurt School New Historicism Hermeneutics Neo-Marxism Phenomenology Posthumanism Postmodernism Post-structuralism Social constructionism Structuralism Western Marxism Other Kyoto School Objectivism Postcritique Russian cosmism more... Positions Aesthetics Formalism Institutionalism Aesthetic response Ethics Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Free will Compatibilism Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Hard Libertarianism Metaphysics Atomism Dualism Idealism Monism Naturalism Realism Epistemology Empiricism Fideism Naturalism Particularism Rationalism Skepticism Solipsism Mind Behaviorism Emergentism Eliminativism Epiphenomenalism Functionalism Objectivism Subjectivism Normativity Absolutism Particularism Relativism Nihilism Skepticism Universalism Ontology Action Event Process Reality Anti-realism Conceptualism Idealism Materialism Naturalism Nominalism Physicalism Realism By region Related lists Miscellaneous By region African Ethiopian Amerindian Aztec Eastern Chinese Egyptian Indian Indonesian Iranian Japanese Korean Taiwanese Pakistani Vietnamese Middle Eastern Western American Australian British Czech Danish French German Greek Italian Polish Romanian Russian Slovene Spanish Turkish Lists Outline Index Years Problems Schools Glossary Philosophers Movements Publications Miscellaneous Natural law Sage Theoretical philosophy / Practical philosophy Women in philosophy Portal Category Book Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moral_relativism&oldid=998636665" Categories: Morality Meta-ethics Relativism Postmodernism Ethical theories Pyrrhonism Hidden categories: Articles with short description Short description matches Wikidata Articles needing additional references from October 2011 All articles needing additional references All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from April 2020 Articles with unsourced statements from June 2020 Articles with unsourced statements from January 2018 Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version In other projects Wikiquote Languages العربية Български Čeština Deutsch Eesti Español Esperanto Euskara فارسی Français Hrvatski עברית Latina Nederlands Norsk bokmål Polski Português Русский Shqip Српски / srpski Suomi Svenska Türkçe Українська 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 6 January 2021, at 09:31 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement