Social Conditioning Is Morally Relative

We are taught to believe that we “ought” to do things a certain way, considered the “right” way, but we never look at what we ought not to do because the society we live in considers them as morally wrong. Standards and principles are taught through social conditioning, thus which society one is born into will determine their standards and principles. We are not born with moral values or beliefs; we learn them through the environment that we grow up in. Here are three ways that morality is relative. Social conditioning and the environment of one’s upbringing plays a key role in determining moral value and belief. Classifying an act as moral or immoral is in itself relative to the individual. Morality is subjective, so certain acts are more moral or immoral to some individuals or societies than others. Therefore, morality is relative in
Said by Finnish philosopher and sociologist, Edvard Westermarck in his “Ethics are Relative” article. Westermarck believed that every society differs in its morals and that it is immoral in itself to determine whether another society’s morals are correct or not, based on the morals of one’s own society. He also believed that the majority of people in every society will believe in their morals without any doubt. As said in this quote, “In every society the traditional notions as to what is good or bad, obligatory or indifferent, are commonly accepted by the majority of people without further reflection.” (Westermarck 8). Essentially Westermarck’s stance on morality is that it is relative to the society that it is based in and that an individual’s moral values and beliefs are a result of social conditioning and a reflection of the environment that the individual is brought up in. As a result, since morality is relative to each and every society then it must be that there is no universal morality. Westermarck supports this point in this quote, “Could it be brought