Ah, Moral and Ethical Relativism, the modern hippy’s companion to political correctness. It seems so warm and fuzzy on the outside, everyone can be right because no one is! It appears to lack the judgemental nature of tradition ethical frameworks and means everyone can just get along, right? Wrong. For all of its soft and cuddly exterior, the heart of Moral Relativism is an intellectually bankrupt black hole better known as nihilism with a nice little cherry of logical fallacy on top. Its also one of the most judgemental and bigoted ideas to have gained popularity.
The problems with relativism begins with the premise. “Everything is relative”, they claim, “No one system is absolutely right, it all varies.” As can be easily seen, the premise itself is false. Heck, it isn’t just false, it is self-refuting. While a relativist will claim that every possible moral is relative, they fail to realize that in doing so they have declared an absolute. Under a system of moral relativism, any absolute ethical framework is declared wrong. Instead of allowing the freedom to choose any moral code, it removes all ability to choose any moral code. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism are thrown out with the bath water. In declaring absolutes, they must all declared wrong by moral relativism, and in declaring them wrong, relativists themselves become followers of an absolute morality and thus must logically pitch their own framework of “ethics” out as well. Moral relativism is the moral and ethical equivalent of saying “This statement is false,” a recreation of the Epimenides paradox. In other words, the statement is fun to think about while musing about Godel, but utterly intellectually bankrupt when used to determine a system of morals.
It turns out, however, that moral relativism is even worse than a paradox, it equates to nihilism. Moral and ethical frameworks, by their very definition, are philosophically normative, that is they talk about how things ought to be. Moral relativism is quite the opposite of normative, it states nothing about how things ought to be, it just says it doesn’t matter what things ought to be, they can be anyway they like. Furthermore, moral and ethical frameworks must be devoid of law, custom, and personal preference. A moral and ethical framework doesn’t define things in terms of the law, or your own personal likes and dislikes. Moral relativism is all about defining morality based on culture and law. Much like nilihism, Moral and Ethical Relativism eschews the notion that morality exists. As a consequence it leads to what many other moral and ethical frameworks would call “immoral acts”, as such acts cannot, by definition, be immoral in a relative framework.
The combination of the paradoxical nature of moral relativism and its relationship with nihilism creates a very dangerous product. While on the outside moral relativism may look very open, accepting, and forgiving, the fatal flaw in this facade is the consequence of their beliefs. If all morals are relative, the only sin becomes hypocrisy. Thus those who come under fire are those who declare a certain morality, but fail to adhere to it. While this may initially seem like simply rooting out the worst sorts of people, in truth we are all hypocrites. Only those who follow no moral code can truly live up to the standards that they set. Most moral and ethical frameworks, however, have within them the capacity and requirement for forgiveness. They understand that people are flawed and will often fail to achieve the goals they set, and they allow for forgiveness if one honestly regrets the moral failures one commits. Moral Relativism, on the other hand, deals harshly with possible hypocrisy but gently with callous disregard for the lives and property of others, leading to a situation where individuals are better off professing no morals and leading lives full of moral and ethical transgression.
Hopefully, in a few years, we will see Moral Relativism go the way of other dangerous and vile ideas, like Utilitarianism and Objectivism, as people realize how intellectually bankrupt moral relativity really is. One can only hope this belief is shed before it causes permanent harm to our society, or poisons the philosophical well too deeply.
-Angry Midwesterner
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
September 4, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Yes, but aren’t you defining Moral Relativism is a strict, personal sense? The ‘general’ use of the term refers to anyone who doesn’t set the same moral code as I. So, as an example, one religion sets itself as an absolute standard and anyone transgressing from that standard is a Moral Relativist.
I did like that you used two derogatory framing labels in your first sentence. While reading most blogs, that would get my mouse to do some walking. Most that blather such labels don’t have very interesting things to say. Kudos on the argument, but it is a structure argument rather than a real world construction. Very few can claim to live by a strictly Moral Relavist code, they wouldn’t know how to get out of bed in the morning having to make that many ‘moral’ decisions. 🙂
Perhaps the framing of the argument as an absolute is where I diverge. Perhaps not. I don’t know where my ‘morals’ lie on this one. 😛
Maybe some real world examples would help.
Certainly for some Bush’s war in Iraq is a moral action. But, the act itself would be considered moral relativism by not just the Catholic faith, but even the faith that Bush himself proclaims to follow. Is that Moral Relativism?
And what Judeo-Christian faith promotes abortions? Isn’t the decsion to support a woman’s right to choose Moral Relativism? Or is it just fighting against a phallo-centric society? You be the judge of that one. LOL
Since Moral Relativism is in itself a contradiction to religious dogma, couldn’t that include just about everyone except for the members of the one true faith? (South Park says it’s the Mormons…the jury is still out) Let’s find that one and then we can all follow that and we can wipe this nasty scourge from our great land…
And stop going to the O’Reilly/fiction section in the bookstore/library. What’s the next topic? The War on Christmas??? 🙂
September 4, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Does it matter? Moral relativism is dying in the West anyway. Osama bin Laden shot it through the head. Not even the uber-liberal Noam Chomsky argues that what happened on 9/11 is justifiable. Osama just went to show that some things (namely flying full airplanes into populated buildings) are always and everywhere wrong.
September 5, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hedwig, it seems you don’t know what “moral relativity” is. Moral relativity is the rejection of the existence of absolute morality. The general use of the term is *not* someone who has a different set of morals than oneself. It means someone who believes absolute morals do not exist.
Not necessarily. While my religion sets an absolute prohibition on killing people, just because you kill people doesn’t mean you are a moral relativist, it just means you abide by a different set of morals. People who believe in the just war doctrine, for example, have absolute moral teachings on when one can and cannot kill another, they believe this absolute morality exists and thus though they believe differently than me, they are not moral relativists.
Moral relativists are those who claim that all moralities can be equally valid, as no absolute morality exists.
BTW, what were the two framing labels? I get hippies, but what was the other you saw?
September 5, 2007 at 10:53 am
ANM says:
If only that were true ANM. I know plenty of people who say we deserved 9/11, and plenty of people who sympathize with violent cultures because “it’s part of their culture”.
Sadly, Moral Relativism is still going strong.
September 5, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I think that one of the deepest problems with relativism is this. No person who is honestly intellectual and at all introspective can live a truely relative life. There can always be examples brought out, as ANM did with 9/11. If someone thinks thats ok, then you move on to the holocaust (yes yes, goodwin’s law. . .). One can imagine greater and greater moral attrocities that, eventually, even a self proclaimed relativist would have to accept.
No, the true danger comes when moral relativism is used as intellectual noise, a “sound byte” to end an open intellectual exchange before it begins. “That might be true for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true for me.”
September 5, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Got a nice solution, next time so one claims that they are a moral relativist, or that all morals are equally valid, explain that your morals entail putting a bullet in the brain pan to those who claim to be moral relativists, assuming of course they accept your morals to be equally valid. 🙂
September 5, 2007 at 3:39 pm
maschinenbau said was I was trying to say. 🙂
“Moral Relativism” and “Political Correctness” were the two “sound bite” phrases you used in the first sentence. Media types use them to define people with different agendas than their viewers/listeners. I do agree that someone with a relavist position would be mistaken, I just don’t know anyone that could actually pull that off in the real world. The common (you know the one that us alumni rather than the academic types are in) world usage is to disparage other’s ideas because they believe in tolerance. Nasty buggers.
September 5, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Well Hedwig, you must live in a very nasty world then, if people only use those terms to disparage others. And here I thought “Hippy” was the derogatory label you were referring to (which I did mean to disparage).
The funny thing is, people who practice moral relativism and political correctness are typically intolerant.
September 6, 2007 at 8:03 am
“The funny thing is, people who practice moral relativism and political correctness are typically intolerant.”
So, if one believes, setting aside the freedom of speech argument that people use saying they can be as assinine as they want cause it’s Amer-e-ca, that you probably shouldn’t use derogatory terms to describe certain groups, then that would be considered intolerant? Yes, yes, I know that it can go to extremes, but again the label is used to describe people that, say, believe in not attacking groups. The groups stand up to attacks and people complain they’re just too politically correct and should get over it. No intolerance there.
September 6, 2007 at 10:37 am
So, if one believes, setting aside the freedom of speech argument that people use saying they can be as assinine as they want cause it’s Amer-e-ca, that you probably shouldn’t use derogatory terms to describe certain groups, then that would be considered intolerant?
Of course not. But most people who insist on “political correctness” aren’t trying to get rid of derogatory terms. They’re trying to destroy common speech because they are intolerant of other’s use of it.
Furthermore, so called politically correct advocates are almost always outspoken when it comes to marginalizing main stream beliefs. For instance, Madison, WI banned public displays of nativities, but mandated public displays for Hanukkah and Ramadan, all in the name of political correctness.
When it comes down to it, words only have power if we give them to it, banning words only has a chilling effect, it does not fix any problem. It causes more.
May 27, 2008 at 6:23 am
“The problems with relativism begins with the premise. “Everything is relative”, they claim, “No one system is absolutely right, it all varies.””
Took me awhile finally spotted it.
The above statements refers to relativism not moral relativism. “No one moral system is absolutely right”
“Under a system of moral relativism, any absolute ethical framework is declared ‘wrong'”
Try replacing the word with ‘different’.
Not sure if I’m 100% logical here
1) Saying there are no absolutes is a paradox. Since that statement itself is an absolute.
2)Saying there are no ‘moral absolutes’ depends on whether u define the statement as a ‘moral’ or a opinion
“Got a nice solution, next time so one claims that they are a moral relativist, or that all morals are equally valid, explain that your morals entail putting a bullet in the brain pan to those who claim to be moral relativists, assuming of course they accept your morals to be equally valid. :)”
Yes, unless the moral relativist has the idea that defending himself against gun carrying murderers is ethically correct, then you have a war going on.
“The funny thing is, people who practice moral relativism and political correctness are typically intolerant.”
Ok, you win.