Objective Relativism

581 Words2 Pages

Most people believe that truth is relative at the moral plane. Across centuries, there has been no absolutism about objective truth across societies and cultures. It is possibly because of differing sociocultural environments, values and beliefs that are prevalent in various regions around the world. It is also possibly because; there is no absolute measurable certainty about moral facts and truth itself. As such, I support the thought process in defense of the argument from moral disagreement to relativism. Descriptive relativism observes that what is believed to be morally correct varies among different individuals and cultures. As such, there exist disagreements to moral questions on the whole. Moral relativism, as a concept, states that what is morally correct is relative to different individuals or cultures. Moral judgments are not always objectively true or false and that different individuals can hold conflicting moral judgments without any of them being absolutely mistaken or in the wrong. As stated in the article by Drefcinski, a person who accepts moral relativism denies that there exist some universal, objectively true and possibly absolute moral norms that all humans and societies ought to accept. At a functional level, however, someone who accepts descriptive relativism could still maintain that there exist some universal, objective and possibly absolute moral norms that all humans and cultures ought to accept. …show more content…

For example, Callatians and Greeks held different beliefs about the appropriateness of cremation after death. Westerners and Eskimos held differing beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and the position of a wife. Thus, the proponents of moral relativism infer that because different cultures and individuals hold different moral beliefs and standards, there is no objective truth to any of those moral beliefs and

Open Document