What is the difference between normative and descriptive realativism?

Answer 1

Descriptive relativism examines, through factual accounts, a plethora of conflicting values without attempting to reach a definitive conclusion on morality. For example a descriptive relativist might research the practice of cannibalism to the accepted abhorrence of it in certain cultures. The relativist accepts that no factual account of peoples differing moral views will lead to a definitive moral conclusion, the relavtivist might adopt a personal viewpoint in the process though. For example that certain moral values are primitive compared to others and that we should therefore encourage the former in advancing their moral standard or that there are a wide variety of moral values and that there are no absolute values.

In contrast to this Normative relativism advocates that that different moral outlooks are appropriate in their own time. Moral values here a considered as cultural prefrences. In the same way that a cultures food and nutrition is developed according to the surroundings and resources, so are moral values. However normative realism leads to unfavourable conclusions such as the non existence of moral progression, a case of genetic fallacy and a plethora of assumptions such as the unified and uniform moral opinions of every individual in a society at a given time.

So the distinction between normative and descriptive relativism is that normative realism provides one conclusion which although difinative, presents it with multiple issues. Descriptive relativism doenst prescribe any particular conclusion but leaves morality as an open question.

Answer 2

Normative relativism involves the belief that moral standards are relative to particular cultures or societies, meaning there are no universal moral truths. Descriptive relativism, on the other hand, simply observes and describes the diversity of moral beliefs and practices across cultures without making judgments about their validity.