Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

The commonsense view of morality and moral standards is this: There are moral norms or principles that are valid or true for everyone. This claim is known as moral objectivism, the idea that at least some moral standards are ob­ jective. Moral objectivism, however, is distinct from moral absolutism, the belief that objective moral principles allow no exceptions or must be applied the same way in all cases and cultures. A moral objectivist can be absolutist about moral principles, or she can avoid absolutism by ac­ cepting that moral principles are prima facie. In any case, most people probably assume some form of moral objectivism and would not take seriously any claim implying that valid moral norms can be whatever we want them to be. But moral objectivism is directly challenged by a doctrine that some find extremely appeal­ ing and that, if true, would undermine ethics itself: ethical relativism. According to this view, moral standards are not objective but are rela­ tive to what individuals or cultures believe. There simply are no objective moral truths, only relative ones. An action is morally right if en­ dorsed by a person or culture and morally wrong if condemned by a person or culture. So eutha­ nasia is right for person A if he approves of it but wrong for person B if she disapproves of it, and the same would go for cultures with similarly diverging views on the subject. In this way, moral norms are not discovered but made; the indi­ vidual or culture makes right and wrong. Ethi­ cal relativism pertaining to individuals is known as subjective relativism, more precisely stated as the view that right actions are those sanctioned by a person. Ethical relativism regarding cultures is called cultural relativism, the view that right actions are those sanctioned by one’s culture. In some ways, subjective relativism is a com­ forting position. It relieves individuals of the burden of serious critical reasoning about mo­ rality. After all, determining right and wrong is a matter of inventorying one’s beliefs, and any sincerely held beliefs will do. Morality is essen­ tially a matter of personal taste, which is an ex­ tremely easy thing to establish. Determining what one’s moral views are may indeed involve deliberation and analysis—but neither of these is a necessary requirement for the job. Subjective relativism also helps people short­circuit the un­ pleasantness of moral debate. The subjective relativist’s familiar refrain—“That may be your truth, but it’s not my truth”—has a way of stop­ ping conversations and putting an end to rea­ soned arguments.