Search the Community

Moral (or ethical) relativism is a branch of philosophy with a few different schools of thought, but in the end it more or less boils down to different cultures having ideas of what is right and wrong and that no point of view is wholly correct because no point of view encompasses all truths. This is how I view life. I believe that every group has ideas on what is right and wrong, and that, generally speaking, most groups do what they believe is right. However, to others, that might seem like the wrong thing. I did not always think this way. In fact, I used to very much be one of the "it's my way or the high way" sorts of people. I still am, in some ways. I'm very opinionated, and if I'm making something I'm going to make it the way I think is most right. But it's shaped the way I approach other people and interact with them, and I feel that interacting with others with the thought in mind that they are doing what they think is best (even if I don't agree with their concept of what's best) has been a help to me rather than a hindrance. In my line of study (medical care), it's almost a mandatory way of thinking (but that's a topic for another day), though I developed my own opinion on this before it was encouraged by school. There are a number of people who are outraged by the idea of moral relativism, and I had an encounter with some of them yesterday. I admit that I struggle still to see exactly where there issue was in the context of the problem we were discussing, so I cannot share with you what the exact nature of their issue was, but in general they seemed upset that I did not support one warring party in a fictional war and tossed the term moral relativism at me in a manner which I presume they thought would be insulting. I was not insulted, but this was the first time I had encountered such a strong reaction to such a scenario and it got me thinking. The idea of moral relativism doesn't claim that everything a culture does is perceived as correct within that culture. Women not having the right to vote is/was an example of this: though it is/was the norm within cultures, there were/are a number of people who did/do not perceive this as right or fair. Change was brought about as a result. It also appears to be the case that, as a society develops, it gears itself more and more towards the fair treatment of the people within that culture. This is not the case everywhere and as a species we do indeed have a long way left to go, but another thing that I feel people misunderstand is that change is not instantaneous and is never easy. It is an ongoing and infinite process, and as such takes time. Moral relativism also does not claim that the indigenous thought or reasoning behind a certain policy within a culture was correct to begin with, because the very point of the idea is that nothing is. Moral relativism doesn't forbid that groups or individuals have their own ideas on what is right and wrong. It does not require that everyone thinks the same way, only the recognition and acceptance that what is right for you might not be right for someone else, and vice versa. It does not advocate interfering with a group that you do not agree with, certainly not by aggressive means, but it also does not say that you shouldn't defend yourself from aggressors. It doesn't say that you have to put yourself second for "the greater good" or in the name of tolerance. It's a fascinating idea because at its very core I interpret it as meaning you do you and do it freely, but beware the consequences of your actions. It's not promoting lawlessness at all. It's a reminder of the world as it is: all our actions do have consequences because not everyone agrees with us and thinks the exact same way we do. But it's also an idea for what the world could be: empathetic to one another and accepting of our differences. Empathy is key in the positive development of society, and part of empathy is being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to understand why they experience things the way they do and understand their situation. I do feel that thinking that no one else has shoes worth putting on aside from you is incredibly ignorant. Without empathy we get groups of people who believe that they are wholly right and that everyone else is wrong, and I do, personally, find that alarming (not to mention obnoxious). A group that believes they are the only correct one feels justified to do anything at all without regard for how it will impact others, and we are aware of the results of that kind of thinking. And that's my thought barf for today.