Moral Relativism

At first glance, moral relativism appears to be an appealing, well though out philosophical view. The truth of moral judgments is relative to the judging subject or community. The basic definition of moral relativism is that all moral points of view are equally valid; no single person’s morals are any more right or wrong than any other person’s. As you look closer at the points that moral relativists use to justify their claims, you can plainly see that there are, more often than not, viable objections that can be made against the moral relativist’s arguments. Moral, or ethical, relativism is made up of two types of relativism: cultural and individual relativism. Cultural relativism says that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to a culture, to a way of life that is practiced by a whole group of people. Individual relativism says that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to the preferences of an individual. Cultural and individual relativism support the claim that there are no “universal moral truths” in the world. Universal moral truths are morals that apply to all societies and cultures. I believe that morality is relative to culture simply since our morals develop from the surroundings in which we are raised. Our parents, culture and societal experiences build our individual views on what is moral and immoral. Perceptions are formed through example, especially when we are children as we learn what is right and wrong through our parents and how they react to situations.

The theory behind ethical relativism states that ethical standards are not concrete for all societies and times, but rather are relative to the standards of individual societies and time periods. I disagree with this theory because societies should be judged by their moral beliefs on the foundations that time doesn't change what is morally right and wrong and their should be more emphasis based on the individual rights as opposed to respecting the morals of that individual's