John Stuart Mill's Arguments Against Relativism

1360 Words6 Pages

In Defense of Relativism
Intro:
The philosophical view of relativism states that the moral code of a culture is the product of the society’s upbringing and that there is no moral code that is superior to another moral code because of the drastically different culture each society possesses. Therefore, relativists believe it is intolerant of us to judge other cultural practices as unethical or wrong. Opponents of relativism argue that if relativism were to be accepted, our belief of moral progress would be called into question, as we can no longer compare one society to another. I support relativism and argue against the opposition’s argument by stating that moral progress indeed did occur, however, it occurred relative to the current moral code.
Outline Relativism
Relativism is the …show more content…

Their argument can be presented in the following format:
If Relativism is true, then the moral code of our society has no special status.
If our moral code has no special status, then it is not superior to that of a previous society.
So, if Relativism is true, our moral code is not superior to that of a previous society
Moral progress implies that the current moral code is superior to the one it replaced.
Therefore, moral progress cannot exist under relativism.
But moral progress does exist.
Therefore, Moral Relativism is flawed and should not be observed. In response to the objection against moral relativism associated with moral progress , a relativist might challenge its fourth premise, the premise that states that under moral relativism “moral progress cannot exist”. A relativist might argue that moral progress is made based upon the context of our current moral code and is relative to our current time frame. Thus, moral relativism is not flawed. A relativist’s argument might look like the