Relativism and Moral Progress

From guest blogger, Kendra.

It is evident that there has been moral progress in the world. This makes the argument that relativists pose to be invalid.

Relativists might say to that, that slavery is bad is just the opinion of more people now than it was before or perhaps new technology eliminated the need in today’s society for it. There are still people that believe that one race is better than another, but it is the minority so it is not heard

They may pose the argument that well if I didn’t like milk as a child and now I like milk today that is just a change in opinion. It isn’t moral progress and neither is the change from a historical episode of immorality like slavery.

The objectivist would respond with the fact that we can agree society is more morally civilized now than it did 100 years ago. Woman have rights now and that is more moral. Gay marriage is becoming legalized all over the world. There is a systematic way to deal with criminals now. Etc. Those that have the differing opinion are too closeminded to be defined as rational humans that can be moral.

You cannot account moral progress to change of opinion. Relativists will continue to bite the bullet with their it’s just a matter of opinion account but at what point is that still sufficient? Objectivists have concrete historical evidence to show that humans have made progress on determining moral truths.

Cultural Relativism and Cultural Practices

From guest blogger, Ming.

We talked about Ethical Relativism in class. It has two forms: cultural relativism and individual relativism. I want to talk about Cultural relativism mainly. The theory is that one makes his/her decision depends on cultural commitments. In other words, morality is made by each society and society has final say in ethics.

Before reading Ethical Relativism, I thought it would be a good thing because I believe that majority people would make moral decisions, and the society would make best choice that is beneficial to well-beings.

However, the story of Nuran Halitogullari changed my mind. A 14-year-old girl was killed by his father because she was raped and her father thought she had dishonored their family. Such “honor killings” usually go unpunished in Istanbul because of cultural beliefs that a family’s honor often depends on the “purity” of its women. From my point of view, that girl already suffered a lot, and it takes courage to live her future life. She already lost virginity and that is a huge suffer for her and for her family. However, killed by her father, she was even poorer than being raped. If cultural relativism is correct, then killings in such cultures are moral. But how can killing innocent people be moral?

I did a little research online and found that there are some awkward (at least seen by me) belief in other cultures. For example, Shiite Muslims believe that suffering martyrdom can pay tribute and absolve sin. Therefore, the day of Ashura, an event recognized by many Muslims around the world, select men join a procession and flagellate themselves with daggers to the head. Under Muslim cultures, it is morally right even though doing so causes pain. But how can hurting oneself be moral?