Moral Relativism

Relativism is an attractive theory because it seems to advocate tolerance.  It is especially attractive to young people.  But just because it is attractive doesn’t make it viable. The goal of Relativism is non-interference, which one might interpret as a kind of tolerance. But true tolerance is much more than just leaving others alone, it is understanding, acceptance, learning and appreciating the value in others, perhaps walking a mile in the shoes of another.  Perhaps it is the pluralist (soft-universalist) position where we have or have developed many differing customs for dealing with social interaction, but still have some basic moral principles in common.  Note the word 'principles' here.  Often I hear people confuse specific acts of moral import with principles.  We might have widely differing moral specifics (customs for dealing with moral behavior), but yet have the same or very similar moral principles.  Tolerance, in some sense, is an attempt to get at the deeper level of principles, so that the surface level of our customary method of dealing with those principles, can be understood.

Essentially Moral Relativism stems from Sociological/Anthropological studies of various cultures and concludes that Cultural Relativism is therefore the guide for the theory often called Moral Relativism.  But just because the norms of one culture differ widely from another does not entail that there are not some basic moral principles that apply to all cultures. The principle thesis of Cultural Relativism makes a moral judgment here, that we have no right to interfere in their cultural norms, since those norms are valid for that culture.  If we carry that over to morals and develop a Moral Relativism on this same notion, that we have no right to interfere, we are making a moral judgment that one ought not interfere with the social ammenities of others and likewise their morals.

We should never confuse, however, morals and social/cultural norms.  Consider that in some societies it is not customary for a woman to shave her legs, or in some for a man to shave his face. But would it be immoral for a woman to shave her legs, or for a man to shave his beard?  Just because it is customary does not entail that it is immoral.  However some people in these societies believe it to be immoral.  In fact in some countries the confusion between morals and customs is so deeply entrenched that it is believed that to go against the prevailing winds of custom is immoral.  In some Muslim countries it is immoral for a woman to go outside the home without being completely covered, and escorted by a male member of her household.  We are told that this developed many centuries ago as a protective measure for the woman, so that she was not pummeled by blowing desert sands, and protected from thieves and robbers by her escort.  But now today this has developed into a moral question, and the woman may be detained by the morals police, if she doesn't follow these societal prescriptions.

We ought not develop such notions in our western societies.  Our social customs ought not be considered such, that it would be immoral to break them. There might be good reason to break a social custom, but it is unclear that there can be a good reason to break a moral prescription (law).  In a pluralistic society we ought to see that our social customs differ from morality.  We cannot allow ourselves to believe that the social customs we have developed are essentially morals, and to break them is not only socially taboo, but also morally reprehensible.  (to be continued...)