Is ethical relativism an oxymoron

Answer 1

Ethical relativism is an oxymoron for many reasons. The discipline of ethics involves the identification and prioritization of principles that are rational, inherently and objectively good for human beings and applicable to all. Universal conceptions of popular human virtues, such as love, tolerance, justice, equality and courage, and ethical principles concerning respect, conscience and human dignity, all entail a recognition of their inherent goodness and their universally-desired natures. Aristotelian virtue ethics, natural law principles and Kantian (or deontological) ethics all demonstrate the objective, rational and universal nature of various ethical principles that have existed for centuries.

The study of ethics without such principles may lead one to the conclusion that ethics is relative. But such a conclusion is neither rational nor justifiable.

The irrational and illogical nature of ethical relativism can be quickly demonstrated by reference to its supreme virtues of tolerance and non-judgment. If ethical relativism is correct, then values and virtues are relative to something, either an individual or a culture we presume. But which is it? Can an individual disagree with his own culture? On this relativists cannot agree. According to a cultural relativist the culture defines what is right and wrong for its members and, in essence, is infallible. An individual relativist who sincerely disagrees with his own culture because of his personal upbringing or experiences may quickly be considered to be wrong or immoral by the culture itself. Such a judgment is made but often seen as prohibited by ethical relativists since it is moral NOT to judge. Indeed, it is often taught by relativists that tolerance is the only acceptable course of moral action. It should be plain from all of this that judgment is inevitable (even between relativists) and that tolerance must either be followed as a universal virtue or perceived as a requirement that all actions and practices are morally equivalent because they are neither inherently good nor bad, nor right and wrong. On what basis can a relativist even begin to make such judgments?

The simple answer is that even relativists make judgments based on universal principles, the very concepts that they deny exist. They just don't admit this. The study of the philosophy of relativism in western civilization demonstrates that its earliest origins are found in the ancient Greek philosophy of the Sophists. Sophists like Protagoras taught that man was the measure of all things and that man can control the circumstances of his happiness through conformity and the pursuit of power. Thus, ethical relativism affirms that power, not tolerance, is really the supreme virtue and that nothing, except perhaps power, is inherently good or bad. Consequently, the practice of actual relativism cannot be said to be logical or consistent with the primary tasks and functions of ethics and morality.