Why we should not be moral relativists

Being moral relativist means beings someone who accept multiple perspectives of seeing something. According to the lectures about being moral relativists, we learn that being moral relativists show high degree of tolerance of accepting others which are widely developed in this world which need people who are flexible and adaptable to everything. However, in this context, I believe moral relativist is not the same with flexible and adaptable personality. We talk about moral which indicate the general values which keep our world in harmony and I think we should not be moral relativists. There are three reasons to support for my arguments as follows.
First, moral relativists typically exaggerate the degree of diversity among everything and reduce the importance core set of universal values that any human culture must have. They share their conformity to everything in the world. In fact, not everything in the world could be accepted. We lived in the world who hold universal values that help us live in balance and harmony. Moral relativists tend to cast out the universal norms that cause people get into trouble by accepting everything. Second, I think being moral relativists show inconsistency personality of people which indicate the lack of integrity. In my opinion, being moral relativists cause the lack of commitment and consistency of general truth which show the exaggerate degree of tolerance to others. It cause the person has no strong principle for their life by accepting any kind of principles. Being moral relativists show that they have no foundation for their life which cause them go to some ‘place’ to another ‘place’ without any clear principle. It cause them losing true standards of life which lose the credibility of their life. In fact, without non-relative standard norms, we will have no basis to achieve something good or bad.Third, there is great tendency of being moral relativist judge everything based on their own subjectivity. Moral relativists has no objective criteria since they accepting everything based on their judgement. It seems they become very tolerance but we should really think based on what kind of standard they conforming everything? Unfortunately, this becomes one of the biggest fall of moral relativist. They become an individual who believes to be right is right, and that would seem to undermine the whole idea of morality.
Finally, I think being moral relativist is totally different being flexible and adaptable. Our creative world indeed needs someone who could accept differences but it still require clear standards, objective criteria, strong commitment and consistency. Being moral relativist would create a world losing their own values and characteristics. Therefore, I recommend that people hold their own moral perspectives but they still could learn to be flexible and adaptable in several context that are neccesary to show their uniqueness.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. srinawati says:

    The relativity concept was established by Franz Boas, the American father of anthropology. This concept means to see things (e.g. morality, culture, language) through the eyes of those who practice them. You don’t judge things according to your own value, whatever your own value is. There are some shortcomings of this concept. For example, how far you can tolerate other views.
    In my opinion, the principle seems to have the same meaning of Indonesian proverb, “Jangan mengukur baju dibandan sendiri,” Some American social scientists such some anthropologists sometimes still make this type of mistakes, seeing other cultures or things through their own western value.
    Cultural relativism hopes to achieve a balance that culture should be judged within its own terms to prevent ‘ethnocentricism.’ It is a difficult concept because it is often we value our own (e.g. culture, morality) better or greater than others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *