Universalism Vs.

Relativism

Universalism in Ethics

Moral Universalism is the meta-ethical position that there is a universal ethic which applies to all
people, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing
feature, and all the time. A universal ethic is a moral system that applies universally to all of
humanity, and thus transcends culture and personal whim. The source or justification of this
system is variously claimed to be human nature, a shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands
of universal reason, common themes among existing moral codes, or the mandates of religion.

It is the opposite of Moral Relativism, the position that moral propositions do not
reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make
claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

One distinctive understanding of universalism in ethics is that ethical principles are principles
for everybody. They prescribe obligations for everybody, define rights for everybody, list virtues
for everybody. The most minimal version of ethical universalism is a claim about the form of
ethical principles or standards. It is the claim that ethical principles hold for all and not merely
for some, that is, for everybody without exception.

A second conception of universalism in ethics emphasizes the content as well as the form and
scope of principles. Principles which hold for everybody will prescribe or recommend the same
for everybody (same obligations, same rights, same virtues and so on). Advocates of universal
principles see this as a merit: they see equality of requirement and entitlement as ethically
important. For example, discussions of universal human rights emphasize not only that all
humans have rights, but that they all have the same rights.

Many religions, including Christianity and Islam, have morally universalist positions, and regard
their system of morality as having been set by a deity, and therefore absolute, universal, perfect
and unchangeable. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations can
be seen as an example of global efforts to bring a universalist, equal and common moral justice
to all people, and Moral Universalism is, at least in part, the basis for modern human rights.

Criticisms of Moral Universalism

 How do we come to know what the universal morals are? For morals to be truly
universal and absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source,
interpretation and authority, which critics claim is an impossibility.

1|Page
  The sheer diversity of moral opinions which exists between societies (and even within
societies) in the world today suggests that there cannot be a single universal morality.

Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's society
or culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the
society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be
morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards --
standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards
against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct,
there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on
ethical matters among members of different societies. It is the view that moral (or normative)
statements are not objectively true, but “true” relative to a particular individual or society that
happens to hold the belief. Put negatively, according to Ethical Relativism, there are no
objective moral values, no objective right or wrong, and no universally valid moral claims
independent of what a subject happens to believe. Hence, there are no objective and universal
norms against which we might measure our subjective beliefs about morality. There is no moral
knowledge. The opposite view- right and wrong is objective and universal – is often called
nonrelativism, or Ethical Objectivism.
Two versions of Ethical Relativism

Individual or Personal Ethical Relativism: ethical statements are relative to the individual.
I have my ethical views and you have yours, neither my views nor your views are better or more
correct. In a sense we are all equally correct, insofar as whatever we believe is true, or looked
at differently, the idea of being more or less correct doesn’t apply to moral beliefs, since that
would assume that there is some objective standard of right or wrong, independent of what I
might believe which would serve as a standard of judgment, but that is exactly what relativism
denies. This is sometimes called ethical subjectivism.

Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism: ethical statements are relative to a given society.
Although societies may differ or disagree as to what is right or wrong, for an individual to
decide what is right or wrong, one must simply look to the norms of the society in which they
live. Right and wrong simply IS what a given society says it is. And although a society may
believe that its views are the correct ones, cultural ethical relativism insists that no society’s
views are better or more moral that any other society’s beliefs. For the same reason stated

2|Page
above, there is no objective standard independent of what a society actually believes against
which its views might be evaluated.

An operational definition of Ethical Relativism: Whenever two people or two societies disagree
about the morality of an act (i.e., hold different and opposing views), both sides are equally
correct.

Arguments for Ethical Relativism

1. The Diversity of Moral Views

2. Moral Uncertainty
Despite our best efforts, we are often uncertain about what is the right thing to do, especially in
the context of a dilemma, our judgment seems to be very subjective, a matter of personal
opinion. There seems to be no decisive way to settle many moral disputes, in contrast with
factual disputes. In sum, the fact that I do not know for certain in a given situation what is right
implies that there is no objective standard; hence morality is relative and subjective.

3. Situational Differences
The actual situation in which people live are often very different, it is implausible to believe that
there could be one set of moral principles or rules that are universally true for all persons at all
times. In sum, given the many differences in particular circumstances, what we all morality must
be relative to the particular situation and no objective or universally valid moral norms exist.

4. Toleration of Differences
People from different cultures have different moral beliefs, one ought to tolerate, i.e., not be
critical of, these beliefs. One ought not to think that one view is better or more correct than
another, hence one should adopt ethical relativism, which entails that all moral beliefs are
equally correct. In sum, Ethical Relativism promotes Tolerance for differences and/or Tolerance
is consistent with ethical relativism.

Critical Remarks:
Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices
of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For
example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common
practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it

3|Page
while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our
society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to
care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles
but agree on the principles.
Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas
others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on
local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be
governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences
that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all
practices are relative.
Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral
beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a
society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge
from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that
believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those
practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for
moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may
hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions
exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right
action when social consensus is lacking?
Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that
universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among
cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs
and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery
in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the
beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible
regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.
For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination
of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and
beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding
their views than others.
But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the
concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have
different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages
us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to
examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

4|Page