Moral relativism

Moral relativism is the theory that moral statements cannot have objective truth; rather, they are true under varying societal conditions. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth. Relativism is a cognitivist metaethical construct that primarily serves to explain from where moral statements derive their truth.

This view was first postulated by twentieth century philosopher Gilbert Harman in his book Moral Relativism Defended. Harman's central thesis is that "morality arises when a group of people come to a tacit understanding about their relations among each other" and provides the example in terms of moral action that "just as it is wrong to say that a dog is large, period, apart from any comparison class (for example, knowing the size of the average dog), it is wrong to say an action is wrong, period, apart from a similar comparison class such as a society. " Other philosophers have drawn inspiration from Harman's analysis. Most famously, the argument from the Island is a thought experiment that attempts to prove the theory: It imagines an island and a newborn child put on that island. The child is given food and everything it needs to grow up comfortably, but never meets another human, or any other living being, for that matter. The argument says that if that person were to grow up and describe (assume that it learned a language) morality, it would not be able to grasp the concepts of right or wrong. For example, if that person were told that lying is wrong, it would have no way to conceptualize a moral prohibition on lying. The argument concludes that without other people, i.e., a society though which derive standards of moral conduct, morality cannot exist. Put simply, morality cannot exist in a vacuum; normative statements make sense only in relation to other people.

The Discovery Institute was recently criticized for its poor understanding of the tenets of relativism when it wrote that:

Moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still under girds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Contrary to the Institute's writings, Moral relativism has no connection to any social sciences- it is entirely divorced from the concept of science. Instead, it is a purely philosophical concept that functions to serve as a theory as to why moral statements are true or false.

Moral relativity is a philosophy that states there is no absolute Right or Wrong, but not that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. Rather, it just says that morality cannot exist without society. Much has been written to debunk this theory and bastardize the concept by attributing it to the core of liberalist beliefs, but moral relativism by its very nature cannot serve to legitimize common liberal causes such as gay rights and abortion. A moral theory such as relativism has no legal nor political agenda. Relativism is among the most misunderstood concepts in modern culture- it is merely an ethical theory, not a political statement.

A final note: Many pages on this website link to this page in a misguided attempt to draw a link between relativism and other things, such as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Gay Rights. The Conservapedia community kindly asks the reader to refer to the paragraph above in order to educate themselves about the true meaning of relativism.