What are the differences between the school of ethical universalism and the School of ethical relativism?

The school of ethical universalismAccording to the school of ethical universalism, the same standards of what’s ethicaland what’s unethical resonate with people of most societies regardless of localtraditions and cultural norms; hence, common ethical standards can be used tojudge the conduct of personnel at companies operating in a variety of countrymarkets and cultural circumstances.The school of ethical relativismAccording to the school of relativism different societal cultures and customs havedivergent values and standards of right and wrong – thus what is ethical or unethicalmust be judged in the light of local customs and social mores and can vary from oneculture or nation to another.The thesis is that whatever a culture thinks is right or wrong really is right or wrongfor that culture. Consider the following examples.The use of underage laborMany countries have passed legislation forbidding the use of underage labor or, at aminimum, regulating the employment of people under 18. However, in India,Bangladesh, Botswana, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Somalia, Turkey and 100 – plus othercountries, it is customary to view children as potential, even necessary, workers.The payment of bribes and kickbacksIn many countries in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia, it is customaryto pay bribes to government officials in order to win a government contract, obtain alicense or permit, or facilitate an administrative ruling.Ethical relativism equates to multiple sets of ethical standards54

Introduction to Philosophy

Ethics

Some of the questions that Ethics is concerned with are "What do words like 'right', 'wrong', 'virtue', 'vice' mean?", "Why are right actions right?", and "What actions are right?". These are only a few of the questions that fall under the part of philosophy called Ethics, but they should give you some idea of the sorts of things Ethics is concerned with. We have already seen Plato address some of these questions. Now we will see Mill deal with these questions as well.

There are five basic approaches we can take to moral theory: absolutism, universalism, relativism, skepticism, and nihilism. Allow me to give very brief characterizations of each of these approaches. Ethical nihilism denies that there are any moral truths whatsoever. Ethical skepticism denies, not that there are moral truths, but that we can ever come to know what they are. Ethical relativism asserts that moral truths vary from person to person or culture to culture. Ethical universalism asserts that moral truths do not vary in this fashion. Ethical absolutism takes universalism one step further, and denies that moral truths depend on human nature. (Hence, absolutism is a stronger version of universalism.) Plato is an ethical absolutist.

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism has gained a lot of support in recent years. People have become aware of cultural differences and have come to value tolerance among peoples. Often we hear this sentiment expressed in questions like "Who are we to judge . . . ?" or in comments like "Well, just because it's right for you, doesn't mean that it's right for everyone." While I do not propose to deal with all varieties of relativism in this class, I do want to make a few points about it.

The first thing we ought to notice is extreme relativism seems to be self-refuting. If there are no universal truths whatsoever, we can ask if that extreme relativistic truth is itself universally true. If the answer is yes, then there is at least one universal truth. If there answer is no, then it does not cover all truths, so some truths are universal. This very extreme form of relativism seems problematic.

We should also note that relativism does not guarantee tolerance. Think about it this way. If there is a culture where they are intolerant of a whole class of people, what should a relativist say? Well, that culture has, as a moral truth, that a whole class of people ought to be oppressed, or perhaps eliminated. The relativist must say, to be consistent, that we cannot judge this culture. So, we do not guarantee that tolerance will be secured in this case. Furthermore, it isn't clear how the relativist can consistently maintain that we cannot judge, for who is the relativist to tell me what is right and wrong?

One final comment about this issue. Merely because we reject relativism, we do not need to take the position that we have a monopoly on truth and morality. I may claim that morality is universal, and still not think that I know everything about morality, or even that the Western view of morality is entirely correct. Indeed, if we think tolerance is a value that all cultures should embrace, we have adopted a universal position. Relativism, then, need not be the only theory compatible with tolerance. Indeed, it might not be compatible with it at all.

Back to MSU HOME

Last updated: June 12, 2001
URL: http://web.mnstate.edu/mouch/101/ho6.html

What is the difference between ethical relativism and ethical universalism?

What is school of ethical relativism?

What is the difference between universalism and cultural relativism?

What is the basic difference between ethical universalism and utilitarianism?