Legal Definitions - ethical relativism

Ethical relativism is the philosophical view that moral principles and judgments of right and wrong are not absolute or universally applicable. Instead, they are considered to be relative to the individual, a particular culture, society, or historical period. This means there is no single, objective standard of morality that applies to everyone everywhere; what is deemed "ethical" can vary significantly based on context.

• Example 1: Cultural Practices

  In some indigenous cultures, it is considered ethically appropriate and a sign of respect to share all resources equally among community members, even if it means personal sacrifice. In contrast, many modern capitalist societies emphasize individual property rights and the pursuit of personal wealth, where extensive sharing might be seen as optional charity rather than a moral obligation.

  This example illustrates ethical relativism because the moral standard for resource distribution and individual responsibility differs significantly between these cultural contexts. An ethical relativist would argue that neither approach is inherently "more ethical" in an absolute sense; rather, the ethical framework is relative to the cultural values and societal structures in place.

• Example 2: Historical Shifts in Morality

  Centuries ago, dueling to defend one's honor was considered an ethically justifiable, and sometimes even noble, practice in many European societies, governed by strict codes of conduct. Today, engaging in a duel would be universally condemned as an illegal and unethical act of violence.

  This demonstrates ethical relativism by showing how a practice once deemed morally acceptable and even honorable has become ethically reprehensible over time. The moral judgment of dueling is relative to the historical period and the prevailing societal norms and legal frameworks.

• Example 3: Individual Ethical Choices

  Consider two individuals debating the ethics of consuming meat. One person might believe it is ethically wrong to eat animals due to concerns about animal welfare and environmental impact, choosing a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Another person might believe that consuming meat is ethically permissible, citing its role in human nutrition and traditional diets, and perhaps supporting sustainable farming practices.

  This scenario highlights ethical relativism because both individuals hold strong, yet conflicting, ethical positions. An ethical relativist would suggest that there isn't an objective, universally correct answer to the morality of meat consumption. Each person's ethical stance is valid within their own framework of values, beliefs, and priorities, making the "right" choice relative to the individual.