Jeremy Anderson

Anderson 1

Greg Spendlove
PHIL-1120/001
November 18, 2016
Moral Relativism
Moral Relativism is the idea that moral judgments are only true or false in respect to a
specific culture or individual, and that no culture or individual belief holds precedence over
another. (Westacott 2016.) The vast human population that exists on Earth comes with a variety
of beliefs and moral standards, and by moral standards I mean what determines whether a
persons actions are considered good, bad, right or wrong. In this essay I will argue that some
aspects of Moral Relativism in Theory cannot be included in a logical persons system of beliefs.
I will provide multiple examples, each of them illuminating a flaw in the logic of some of the
main arguments pertaining to Moral Relativism and that all of its ideas are not compatible.
One position on Moral Relativism taken on by Mary Midgley is that which she calls
Moral Isolationism, which states that to some degree, there is difficulty between cultures and
the way that they relatively make judgments about others. This difficulty is in the scope of
respect (that the individual or society may have for another belief/way of thinking) and tolerance
(from one culture to the next). The difficulty, more specifically, is in actually
respecting/tolerating another culture or society. To respect someone, we have to know enough
about him to make a favorable judgment, however general or tentative, and we do understand
people of other cultures to this extent. (Midgley 154.) While it is possible to make a judgment
about morality in a certain society, that judgment cannot hold any truth value, and according to
the concept of moral isolationism there is a false attitude about respect of another culture, that it

Anderson 2
is possible to hold respect for another so long as the individual remains unintelligible of its
practices. One of the examples she uses is about a Japanese word that means to try ones new
sword on a chance wayfarer, or a willing subject that has agreed to help the samurai test his blade
in hopes it cuts through enough flesh. This practice seems utterly disgusting 1) because we do
not understand it as part of our (American) culture, and 2) although it would be considered a
brutal practice here, it provided a samurai with the opportunity to be an honorable member of
either their family or society. Moral Isolationism isnt just a one-way street. If our culture is
unable to truthfully place moral judgments on another, it should also be said that a different
cultures moral judgments imposed upon us hold no truthful value as well. Midgley also
continues to explain that without the ability to rightfully criticize a culture, there would not be
praise of that culture either. With that being said, according to Midgley a culture cannot be
correctly judged by another without an understanding of its customs and what certain practices
entail (whether it be honor, sociability, strength, power, etc).
We do however, make judgments of other cultures based on our own normative moral
standards, or things we find socially acceptable. In an article in the Journal of General
Psychology printed in reading packet #1, Ruth Benedict writes to explain that the consequences
of human behavior are based in some universal standardized moral practice, or truth.
For example, Homosexuality means one thing in our culture while it means something
completely different to another. (Various tribes of) American Indians for example hold an
institution within their society consisting of the Berdache, a name given to them by the French
that essentially means Man-woman. This is a person who, after puberty, takes on the roles and

Anderson 3
dress imitating that of a womanalthough they are not directly considered women. The big
difference seen here and in our culture today is that these Men-women were not regarded as
wrong, and there were not debates on whether they should be allowed to or not. Rather, they
were viewed in light of leadership in womens positions. And, unlike our culture they were not
excluded from participation in the recognized patterns of society. (Benedict 150.)
So, if moral relativism is true we ought not make judgments of another cultures
normative practices as much as another culture judges us. That however, is not to say that we do
not make judgments. The judgments we often make towards another cultures practices are based
on our own normative ethical practices, because one of the main ideas regarding Moral
Relativism states that there can be no truthfulness to moral statements because they are objective
pertaining to different societies.

Anderson 4
Works Cited
Midglet, Mary. Heart and Mind. On Trying Out Ones New Sword. Reading Packet #1: Theories
and Perspectives (154-157)
Benedict, Ruth. Journal of Great Psychology, X, No. 2. Anthropology and the Abnormal.
Reading Packet #1: Theories and Perspectives (149-153). 1934.
Emrys Westacott. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Alfred University, U.S.A. November 12,
2016 < http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/>.
Baghramian, Maria and Carter, J. Adam, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/relativism/>.
Emrys Westacott. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Alfred University, U.S.A. November 10,
2016 < http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/>