Ethical Relativism [addendum] | Research & Encyclopedia Articles

Ethical Relativism [addendum]

Accepting ethical relativism can make a big difference. Opponents often think that the doctrine arises from conceptual confusion and encourages indifference to moral enormities. Advocates think that the doctrine is an antidote to an oppressive moral imperialism that often rationalizes the more worldly forms of imperialism. Both sides can agree that ethical relativism has significant implications for how we should do normative ethics.

Vulgar and Not-So-Vulgar Relativist Arguments for Tolerance

A good example of debate over the normative implications of ethical relativism is Bernard Williams's (1972) criticism of "vulgar relativism," which he defined in three propositions: (1) "Right" means "right for a given society." (2) "Right for a given society" is to be understood in a functionalist sense (roughly, that conceptions of what is right are part of the social fabric). (3) It is wrong for people in one society to condemn or interfere with the values of another society. Williams pointed out that (3) employs a nonrelative sense of "right" and "wrong" excluded by (1). The vulgar relativist confusedly derives a universal moral principle of toleration from a sense of "right" that excludes any universal principle.

Relativists might deny that they are arguing for universal toleration.

Ethical Relativism [addendum] article

Read the rest of this article.
This article contains 2,116 words (approx. 7 pages at 300 words per page).