Moral Objectivism vs. Relativism: A Critical Analysis

The ongoing moral debate between relativism and objectivism focuses on whether morality is influenced by personal decisions and cultural standards or if there are universally agreed upon moral principles. In this essay, I will analyze both viewpoints and advocate for my preferred stance: moral objectivism.

Relativism, whether conventionalism or subjectivism, argues that moral principles are not universal but vary by culture or individual. Conventionalists like Ruth Benedict believe different cultures have varying moral principles, making it impossible for one culture to judge another's morals.

Benedict uses the concept of normality to illustrate this idea, stating each culture defines normal behavior based on the majority with only a minority deviating from this norm. She argues morality is socially approved habits and normality is a form of good. Subjectivism takes relativism further, asserting moral principles are determined at an individual level. In this view, valid moral principles are those an individual believes in and all principles are equally valid.

Criticism of these arguments questions how a society or individual can judge the behavior of others if all socially accepted behaviors or personal moral principles are considered valid.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Free Essays

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It is argued that tolerance can allow for behaviors that were once considered normal, such as slavery in the past, to be viewed as morally right simply because they were popular at the time.

For example, slaveholders in history believed that owning slaves was a good behavior, as it was the norm within their culture. Similarly, Nazism was considered morally right because the majority of the population agreed with it at the time.

According to Louis Pojman, the terrorists of September 11 may be perceived as saints in their own culture, despite being seen as aberrant in Western culture. He questions the validity of conventionalism and its alignment with societal beliefs, raising concerns about the size and definition of a society. Pojman also challenges the idea of social reformers being labeled as immoral for going against the majority in their culture, questioning whether their actions are inherently wrong.

At the conventionalist level, issues arise, but they become even more apparent at the subjectivist level. If subjectivism is true, then any court system or law becomes useless, as judgment is based solely on an individual's own principles. To the subjectivist, all behavior is deemed correct, so disapproval of acts like murder or terrorism holds no ground. Every action holds the same value in the eyes of the subjectivist, leading to a lack of meaning in distinguishing between actions.

By eliminating judgment from an individual's actions, they are left without a reason to act morally as they can justify any behavior with a moral principle. According to Pojman, subjectivism reduces morality to personal preferences, allowing individuals to shape their moral code based on their desires, even if it includes harmful actions like murder. Pojman points out the contradiction between subjectivism and morality, stating that morality is essential for resolving conflicts and improving humanity's situation. To the subjectivist, there is no fixed standard for morality and therefore no necessity for it.

Objectivism holds that certain moral principles are valid for all individuals and cultures. There are various levels of objectivism: the fixed view, which asserts that principles are unchanging; the universal view, which includes the fixed view and states that principles apply universally; and the absolutist view, which encompasses the universal view and claims that certain principles are non-negotiable and applicable to all situations. Advocates of this theory offer different explanations for the origin of these principles, attributing them to human nature, moral realism, God or the divine, or the inherent goodness within humans. Pojman's perspective on objectivism is grounded on the belief that "human nature is relatively similar in essential respects, having a common set of needs and interests."

In defining moral principles as functions of human needs instituted by reason, Pojman rejects absolutism and recognizes that principles can be overridden. He believes certain principles are universally true, with relativism coming into play during their application. These core moral principles are general, allowing for individual or societal discretion on less important issues. Using abortion as an example, the debate revolves around when life begins rather than the right to kill babies. Pojman asserts that disagreement with a principle does not invalidate it; it may simply reflect the individual's misunderstanding.

After considering both sides of the argument, I ultimately found objectivism to be a more suitable choice for me. Although relativism initially appealed to me for its emphasis on tolerance and cultural unity, I found its tolerance to be too lenient and potentially harmful. In contrast, objectivism resonates with me because I believe that humans share common fundamental needs, interests, and desires, leading to universal principles ingrained in human nature. These principles are then shaped by culture and society to determine how they are applied in daily life. An objectivist society should still prioritize tolerance towards other cultures, but not to the extent of conventionalism or subjectivism. Moral principles that impact an entire society should be based on the consensus of the majority rather than the beliefs of a select few.