Ethical relativists claim that there are no moral absolutes. They believe morality is based on the norms of the society and that right and wrong is relative to one’s society. It implies that an action that may be acceptable in one society would not be tolerated in another and that “these different beliefs are true in their respective society’s” http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/relativism.html. 2006.http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/relativism.html. [ONLINE] Available at: http://philosophy.lander.edu. [Accessed 16 October 2016]. . Ethical relativists believe that different people may belief different truths without being wrong, that there are” no objective moral values, no objective right or wrong, and no universally valid moral claims …show more content…
“Beebe, J. R., 2003. Ethical Relativism. Ethical Relativism,Dept. of Philosophy University at Buffalo, [Online]. II. Arguments in Favor of Conventional Ethical Relativism, A. Available at:http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/relativ.htm [Accessed 16 October 2016]. The majority of ethicists dismiss the theory of ethical relativism. Their argument is that if ethical relativism is correct and true then it can be used to justify almost any barbaric behaviour simply because of the fact it is down to society’s norms. On that argument you could make a case for slavery, cannibalism etc. purely on the basis that it has been accepted in societies in the past. You could also say that if the Nazi’s had conquered Europe then their society would be in place and would be the norm. Would that be right? Ethical relativism denies us the right to grow morally as a society and question whether our society is just, moral and fair just because of whatever societal norms are deemed acceptable by the society’s in which the exist. If you accept ethical relativism to be true then all reformers such ad Martin Luther king, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela are wrong as they are going against society’s