Why Ethical Relativism Is Not Tenable in Ethics

Ethical relativism is the view that moral standards are not universal but are instead determined by cultural, societal, or individual preferences. According to ethical relativism, what is considered morally right or wrong depends on the context and varies across different cultures and societies. While this perspective may appear appealing due to its respect for cultural diversity and avoidance of imposing one moral framework on others, it faces significant philosophical challenges that make it untenable as a robust theory in ethics.

Lack of Universal Moral Standards

One of the primary issues with ethical relativism is its rejection of universal moral standards. By arguing that moral values are contingent upon culture or individual preference, ethical relativism suggests that there are no objective criteria for determining right or wrong. This creates problems when it comes to evaluating practices or behaviors that violate basic human rights or cause harm. For example, practices such as slavery, genocide, or gender discrimination might be deemed morally acceptable in some cultures or historical contexts, yet many argue that these actions are inherently wrong regardless of cultural norms. Ethical relativism fails to offer a solid foundation for condemning these universally harmful practices, as it allows them to be justified based on local cultural standards.

Moral Inconsistency and Contradictions

Ethical relativism leads to moral inconsistency, as it suggests that two people from different cultures may hold contradictory moral views, both of which are equally valid within their respective contexts. This results in an incoherent ethical system where one cannot objectively assess the morality of different practices. For example, if one culture believes that female genital mutilation is morally acceptable and another views it as an egregious violation of human rights, ethical relativism offers no way to resolve the conflict between these two opposing moral beliefs. Such contradictions undermine the credibility of ethical relativism as a coherent ethical theory and make it difficult to engage in meaningful moral discourse across cultural boundaries.

Inability to Critique Cultural Practices

A further flaw of ethical relativism is its inability to provide a basis for critiquing harmful cultural practices. If moral standards are entirely shaped by culture, then any action deemed morally acceptable by a particular society must be considered ethically valid, regardless of its consequences. This view prevents any ethical critique of harmful traditions or customs, even when they violate fundamental human rights or cause immense suffering. For instance, if a culture endorses child marriage, ethical relativism would argue that this practice is morally right within that culture, leaving no room for the ethical criticism or challenge of such practices. This leads to a form of moral complacency that fails to protect individuals from oppression or harm.

The “Cultural Progress” Argument

Ethical relativism also struggles with the idea of moral progress. If all moral standards are relative to cultural norms, then how can we account for moral improvements over time? For example, the abolition of slavery, the advancement of gender equality, and the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights are seen as moral progress in many societies. However, under ethical relativism, such progress cannot be universally acknowledged as “better” or “more moral” because it is merely a shift in cultural preferences. This perspective makes it difficult to argue that moral progress is objectively possible, as it reduces moral improvement to mere change, not moral enhancement. The concept of universal human rights also becomes problematic, as it implies some moral standards are universally binding, which relativism cannot accommodate.

The Problem of Tolerance

Proponents of ethical relativism often argue that it promotes tolerance by encouraging respect for different cultural practices. However, this tolerance is misguided, as it can be used to justify harmful practices under the guise of cultural difference. Ethical relativism may lead to an overly permissive stance where cultures are not held accountable for unethical behavior, thereby undermining genuine tolerance, which requires upholding ethical principles like fairness, justice, and respect for human dignity. True tolerance involves recognizing when cultural practices harm others and addressing those harms, something that ethical relativism fails to do effectively.

Conclusion

While ethical relativism appears to promote cultural tolerance and respect for diversity, it is ultimately untenable as a comprehensive moral theory. Its rejection of universal moral standards leads to moral inconsistency, contradictions, and an inability to critique harmful cultural practices. Moreover, it fails to account for moral progress and undermines efforts to create a more just and humane world. For these reasons, many philosophers argue that a more objective and universal ethical framework is necessary to guide moral reasoning, protect human rights, and foster meaningful cross-cultural dialogue.