Analysis Of Moral Relativism

[A]
1) Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
2) Utilitarianism provides a method for calculating the moral worth of specific actions in terms of their consequences. Utilitarianism teaches that happiness comprises the fundamental purpose and pursuit of human life. Therefore, the value and worth of any given action should be evaluated in terms of its ability to produce happiness. The utilitarian defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and teaches that in all cases individuals should act in such a way as to achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism...

... middle of paper ...

...our own beliefs and practices.
(2) A second objection might suggest that the focus on experiencing morality might lead to a lack of deliberation or critical engagement with the concepts of morality intellectually.
1) I would respond to anyone suggesting that tolerating differing opinions weakens the authority of my position by giving the example of stubborn fundamentalists, who by blindly refuse to acknowledge any value in other people’s beliefs really reveal the limitations of their own beliefs insofar as they prevent them from seeing truth and beauty in anything but one’s self.
2) A response to the second objection would be that the very nature of experience engenders thought and deliberation. I cannot go and serve at a soup kitchen without considering the value or meaning of the action. Essentially, experience always affects and stimulates thought and reflection.