Analysis Of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the view that “there is no single true morality. There are many different moral frameworks, none of which is more correct than others.”In this essay, I’m going to evaluate Moral Relativism theory introduced by Gilbert Harman. I will discuss the determinacy and applicability of Moral Relativism.

Harman explains that

-Various cultures have different beliefs and perceptions about right and wrong and act differently regarding their beliefs.

-Moral right and wrong (good and bad, justice and injustice, virtue and vice, etc.) are always relative to a choice of moral framework.

-no moral framework is objectively privileged as the one true morality.

-Moral relativism is made very plausible by actual diversity.

Harman argues that differences in diverse cultures are due to the differences in basic values. While oppositions claim that moral relativism not only exaggerates about the diversity of cultures but also misclaim that basic values are different. In fact, these differences lie on the superficial level, not the roots.

Taking the example of slavery which has been very common among different societies during human history. Both defenders and offenders of slavery were

Harman says that like the fact that “mass and motion is always relative to a choice of patio-temporal framework”, moral right and wrong are also relative to a choice of framework. What elements should be considered in choosing the inclusive yet respectful and loyal to the values of a culture and its individuals? At one point Harman gives examples about the inner cultural diversities like the example of moral vegetarians. A viewpoint is that moral framework could be allocated to individuals. however, In order to have a juristic system, for instance, the moral system of coordinate is needed to be inclusive and does not violate individuals right. If to someone raising animals for food is wrong, can that person complaint against