Moral Relativism - Explained and Debated

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas. Today they are focusing on the ethical theory of moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the idea that all of morality is relative, there are no objective moral truths. A moral relativist would therefore believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action is completely relative to the time, society or culture it takes place in.

This video analyses the strengths of moral relativism as an ethical theory as well as the challenges.

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on Amazon:

Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon:

0:00 - Introduction
0:18 - Moral Relativism overview
1:24 - Descriptive Relativism explained
1:57 - Cultural Relativism explained
3:08 - Metaethical Relativism explained
4:09 - Strengths of Moral Relativism
6:12 - The problems of Moral Relativism
9:44 - Ethical Subjectivism discussion
11:09 - Can morality be both relative and objective?

#moralrelativism #ethics #philosophy

[PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on Amazon:

Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon:

[philosophywithanirishaccen]

I love how you present these discussions as arguments/dialectics. Makes it even more engaging

[cream]

Please keep these coming, the dialogue format is the best philosophy on youtube. The Greeks would be proud

[kakooti]

I like how you have another person disagreeing and seeing the rules from another perspective. And he is very polite. 😊

[beckstr]

love this format, how the other guy politely presents the counterargument!! reminds me of a quote: "we don't need to disagree less, we need to disagree better."

[lefterismagkoutas]

I searched for philosophy tube and I found an *actual* philosophy channel. Thanks for this!

[stevesmith]

In the case of rain, one of them has to be wrong because rain is objectively true. Nobody is questioning the objective truth of rain. However, the jury is still out on the objective truth of morality.

[ottovmp]

Ethical subjectivism is like two people standing in the rain, and the other claiming that it's refreshing and the other claiming that it isn't. Or that's how I see it. Moral dilemmas don't hold some absolute truth in them, and are a fools errand to try and crack. There's no formula for ethics. :D

[callmeJAF]

terrible point. “Yellow is the best colour!” “No! purple is the best!” they’re not “both correct”. There is no correct, it’s subjective

[chuckinchina]

I would argue, rather, that there are certain goods and bads which are relativistic. But there is a fundamental morality which basically spans every culture.

[jasoncorrrigan]

You guys and perspective philosophy are guiding me to understand as many views as I can and the benefits and downsides :) thanks again you guys deserve more recognition

[marcpadilla]

Great example of dialectic. These two give us practical use of philosophy.

[marcpadilla]

Depends on how dangerous it is. The paradox between life, death, safety, and risk. Master and slave morality is a good example of moral objectivity and moral relativism as a whole. It only works in the pursuit of progress when it is wholly liberated from one another. One reinforces the other. Morality is a good thing as a safety net when too much of a good thing gets dangerous.

[kingsleyking]

Great video as always! I really enjoyed seeing both sides of this topic. Thanks guys :)

QUESTION regarding the last part of the video: obviously, I agree that the preservation of human life and elimination of pain and suffering are good. BUT these are objectively good... according to who? Why are they objectively good? What objective standard outside of humanity is there to say that something is objectively good or bad? Because if there's no standard outside of humanity, then it's still only OUR opinion that preservation of human life is good. If a man like Stalin has the power to harm others and take their stuff for himself, why is he wrong? "Oh, because that's not good for the survival of the human race as a whole." BUT why should he care about the survival of human race?? It's just our opinion versus his opinion... UNLESS, the survival of human race is not just our opinion, but it's objectively good. If is it objectively good, then what objective basis is there to explain this fact?

Evolution? Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. Evolution only describes what survives, NOT what ought to survive. In naturalistic evolution without any intelligence and design, there is no literally no objective purpose and intention for the survival of human race. The survival of human race is purely an accidental by-product of the blind forces of nature. Since there's no objective purpose for the survival of the human race, it would be JUST our opinion now when we say that the human race ought to survive. If that were the case, then we can't say Stalin or Hitler were objectively wrong. It's just our society's/culture's subjective opinion against their subjective opinion.

HOWEVER, honest in your heart, you KNOW what Stalin did or what happened in the Holocaust is objectively wrong (for all people at all times). Therefore, there must be a source of morality beyond humanity, beyond just our opinion. What could this source be?

I SINCERELY want to hear YOUR thoughts (Philosophy Vibe guys or anyone else). Thanks! Much love.
- Kings

[wilurbean]

I really wish someone would address the natural commonalities between societies and cultures.
Relativism will say, "look at all these cultures doing different things that are moral/immoral in other cultures!". For example my textbook said that Inuit people will kill off babies to survive the winter if resources are short. They put them out on an ice flow. Therefore they find infanticide moral. Comparing to the West where infanticide is reprehensible.

However moral objectivists might respond that all cultures are finding different ways to preserve the most human life. Doing what it takes to sustain the most human life is pervasive in ALL cultures and peoples. Anyone who would disagree that life is valuable would not survive long. Surely putting an infant out on the ice is something acceptable if only as a last resort. Cannibalisms is an even better use of the flesh however it isn't practiced. Why? Because they know that its an act of desperation and last resort and are trying minimize the immorality of the act.

There are at least some things like this, some moralities that *must* arise as a result of the human condition. I would love to here a rebuttal to this.

[JohnThomas]

Great video and great that you link to the script too. This is a deep subject, and there's a lot of territory left to cover when it comes to the metaethics, but as an overview and a summary of some key arguments, this is first rate! Well done!

[robertsertic]

the rain comparison is not a good argument. Whether or not it is raining is objective reality, whether or not something is moral is subjective perspective. We share an objective reality but we observe that reality through subjective perspective.

[pavelurteaga]

subjective morality is the cheapest ticket to decadence and oblivion ...

[francis_castiglion]

I agree that moral relativism and moral objectivism overlap. At the same time, I don't think people should dismiss either or. So I stand in the overlap until one outweighs the other.

[Dandeeman]

Fair points. I'm definitely in a moral absolutist camp. One that believes in a religion has to be. Though the moral choice on certain issues may be different in different circumstances.