Moral Objectivism Vs Moral Relativism

In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.

The “new hypothesis” attempts to persuade individuals to go beyond their initial thoughts and tries to put folks inside the mind of other cultures and aliens. Individual’s lean toward the idea of moral objectivism as stated before, but with the new hypothesis, the authors are making people think outside the universe, which are making individuals responses shift to a more relative moral truth. The authors are trying to reason that when a question is asked, an individual automatically assumes that certain people are from the same culture and there can only be one correct answer. However, when a question is asked and the individual has to compare one answer from their culture and another answer from a different culture, individuals sway to a more relativist moral truth. Furthermore, when a question is asked and the individual has to choose between an answer from their culture and one from an alien culture, people allow both answers to be