Moral Relativism Essay

1226 Words5 Pages
“It’s true for me if I believe it,” says moral relativism. In the same breath, it argues “if it is acceptable in my culture to torture people (for any reason), then I am accountable only to the constraints of my society’s beliefs of what is right, and not to any other standard of moral truth”. In asserting itself, moral relativism embodies the concept of ‘that’s true for you but not for me’ and implies that this moral disagreement between cultures leads to the conclusion there can be no absolute moral truth. In this essay, I will firstly outline briefly the arguments for moral relativism before countering them with reasons why the arguments are implausible. Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth. Finally, this essay will evaluate the entertainment factor of torture as wrong, based on the argument that a transcultural moral standard of what is right and wrong does indeed exist and how and why this argument is a convincing one indeed. Moral relativism is the theory that what is considered virtuous conduct and right and wrong varies between different cultural contexts and societal situations and is nonexistent in the general abstract. The disagreement argument accounts for the seemingly obvious fact that different cultures have different moral beliefs leading to moral disagreements demonstrating that morality is merely a product of personal or cultural opinion. However, while moral agreements may never be reached fully and are difficult to establish, mere disagreement does not mean there is no absolute truth to pursue. The flexibility argument highlights the exceptions to moral rules in occasions where lying, stealing and worse actions can be morally justified as there are no moral absolutes. In response, objectivists ascertain that while some moral rules may have

More about Moral Relativism Essay

Open Document