Ethical relativism is a theory stating there is no absolute truth, which means that the truth is subjective and can depend on individual characteristics as well as societal expectations, beliefs, and value systems. Within the framework, there is no universally applicable moral principle; thus, there is no one true morality. In contrast, ethical absolutism holds that there are standards that are always true, which means that they are objective and cannot change according to personal or social characteristics. The approach holds that specific actions are intrinsically either right or wrong and exist separately from human existence.
Both ethical frameworks have their strengths and weaknesses, with relativism allowing for greater levels of respect and tolerance for other people’s morality. In the modern highly-diverse society, relativism represents the only practical moral approach because it denies the idea that the norms of one group are superior to those inherent to others (BBC, 2014). It enables the respect of diversity, thus producing a more inclusive and peaceful society. Besides, ethical relativism denies moral imperialism, which means that one society cannot enforce its morals upon others. However, the approach fails to consider that there are universal moral values that cannot be subjected to criticism. For example, the concept of murder is present in every culture, and it is hard to deny its immorality. In addition, moral problems are often complicated and influenced by a myriad of issues, and culture alone cannot be considered the most influential in all ethical challenges.
The strength of absolutism is that it allows groups with different values or cultural influences to share common values. It provides authority to the legislation pertaining to human rights intended to protect people by using a pre-determined ethical code that provides distinct moral judgments in instances when ethical guidance is needed. The weakness of ethical absolutism is that it does not consider the impact of historical development and humanity’s evolutionary nature that can help shape certain laws and regulations. Moreover, the approach does not consider individual characteristics of people, the influence of external factors, and the circumstances under which moral judgments are being made.
Regarding the distinguishment between descriptive and normative ethics, the video by John Paulett explained it perfectly. Normative morality is based on rules and standards, while descriptive ethics are based on beliefs, claims, and behaviors that can vary from one person to another (Paulett, 2013). Scholars specializing in sociology, psychology, and anthropology tend to apply various perspectives in order to understand why people think or act in certain ways. Normative ethics is rather considered by theologists or philosophers who seek to discover which behaviors or opinions are in fact right or wrong.
Throughout the study of humankind, anthropologists have studied how different cultures develop specific moral beliefs, which has been mistakenly referred to as descriptive cultural relativism. It is rather the normative cultural relativism that can explain the emergence of specific moral standards within cultures. What is right or wrong is determined by the culture and certain rules that are being created throughout society’s development. For instance, slavery may not be considered immoral in some cultures, especially since it was acceptable in the past. However, it is crucial to note that despite the fact that cultures can have various ideas of ethics, it does not mean that their moral beliefs are inherently right and should never be reconsidered.
References
BBC. (2014). Subjectivism (relativism). Web.
Paulett, J. (2013). Descriptive vs. normative [Video]. Youtube. Web.