The Importance Of Moral Relativism

Throughout history man has grappled with questions far beyond himself. We have sought meaning in a higher power, explanation for our existence, and reason for our actions. Humans alone hold this contemplative wisdom, and we have done much with it. We have developed and manipulated resources to conquer peoples, vast oceans, and even space itself. In our brief time in this cosmos we have achieved so much, beyond many of our wildest dreams. Yet, for all our contemplation, forward-thinking, and invention, we have yet to conquer ourselves. Specifically, our ethical process of living the good life and our distinction between right and wrong.
Why is this? Why is it that after thousands of years, countless philosophers, innumerable ways of life, do

Moral relativism bases its theories on the idea that different cultures and peoples have varying points of view on the morality of certain experiences. Additionally, relativism claims that none of these viewpoints are inherently better than another. Thus, we conclude that there is no absolute standard for right or wrong behavior, and no correct moral judgement for any event. But why must this conclusion be so absolute? Could the conclusion not be that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong behavior in cases where the behavior is subjectivity is key? Or we could change premise 2 and claim that some viewpoints are inherently better than others. These revisions do not detract from relativism, rather they help us understand the reasons for relative thinking (which will never be abandoned). The issue that many have with moral relativism is that it is both advantageous and problematic. In one sense, it promotes toleration and accommodation to viewpoints that differ from our own, which in turn helps combat malicious feelings such as ethnocentrism and racism. On the other hand, if we must accept other viewpoints as equal to our own than we cannot condemn intolerance or

Two dominant schools of thought exist in ethical objectivism. One sides with deontological theories, this is the Kant spectrum, where we see that what determines the right or wrongness of an act is the act itself. The second school basis itself on consequential theories, claiming that the determinate on whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences. These ideas seem as pleasing as relativism’s toleration, whereby every act is either right or wrong, and it is determinable by the standard it supposes. However, resembling relativism, flaws abound. Utilitarianism is a good example, suggesting that on any occasion the right thing to do is whatever will produce the most happiness overall. This is flawed because there are bound to be persons whose happiness is not derived from the cultures happiness, and in fact may even be subjected to pain if the largest amount of happiness is produced? Is one man’s suffering a fair price for a majorities happiness? Is this even ethically good? The problem with objectivism is that, after many great attempts, no one ultimate all-encompassing standard fits man as a