Objective Argument For Relativism
I haven't heard one for it before, so I made one myself.
Proponents of objective morality espouse the notion that there are absolute definitions of good and evil, bisecting all human actions into these categories. This allows for a widely accessible system of veneration vs. condemnation of actions, facilitating social control and stability. Because all actions have intrinsic value, judgment can easily be carried out in all simple scenarios.
However, this classification system fails to reconcile the plurality of human nature with universal absolutes. It does not explain why most humans act in manners disagreeable to others: if some actions are offensive to the universe, then why do some humans, themselves part of the universe, perform them? A corollary criticism for moral objectivism is that it immediately produces hostility through condemnation of inevitable cultural disagreements.
Another significant problem with this system is that very few simple scenarios are ever encountered. Very often, a person is forced to choose between two evils or two goods, and is expected to accept the lesser evil and the greater good. This, however, requires a central authority to deliniate a coherent value system, which goes specifically against the plurality of human nature. The solution calls for an absolute moral dictation to support equally absolute morals. This solution, the only solution, is in direct conflict with the democratic process and, quite easily, the moral sensibilities of billions worldwide, thus defeating itself.
Moral relativism allots no intrinsic value to any action, and thus does away with the dichotomy of good and evil. It claims that every human being supports their own brand of morality, which may or may not conflict with others'. Relativism thus encounters none of the problems objective morality fails to solve, and elegantly accounts for all human actions.
A criticism of moral relativism is that it fails to provide moral authority for social control and legislation. However, relativism does provide a moral basis for social stability, as there are many universal similarities between human moral values. Without venerating or condemning any particular action, lets human cultures to account for their own stability, allowing change to occur when it must. It imposes neither moral order nor moral chaos, freeing actions from the judgment of binary values and leaves legislation to focus on objectively relevant laws, rather than ones referring to a higher moral truth which, as aforementioned, goes against human plurality.
Proponents of objective morality espouse the notion that there are absolute definitions of good and evil, bisecting all human actions into these categories. This allows for a widely accessible system of veneration vs. condemnation of actions, facilitating social control and stability. Because all actions have intrinsic value, judgment can easily be carried out in all simple scenarios.
However, this classification system fails to reconcile the plurality of human nature with universal absolutes. It does not explain why most humans act in manners disagreeable to others: if some actions are offensive to the universe, then why do some humans, themselves part of the universe, perform them? A corollary criticism for moral objectivism is that it immediately produces hostility through condemnation of inevitable cultural disagreements.
Another significant problem with this system is that very few simple scenarios are ever encountered. Very often, a person is forced to choose between two evils or two goods, and is expected to accept the lesser evil and the greater good. This, however, requires a central authority to deliniate a coherent value system, which goes specifically against the plurality of human nature. The solution calls for an absolute moral dictation to support equally absolute morals. This solution, the only solution, is in direct conflict with the democratic process and, quite easily, the moral sensibilities of billions worldwide, thus defeating itself.
Moral relativism allots no intrinsic value to any action, and thus does away with the dichotomy of good and evil. It claims that every human being supports their own brand of morality, which may or may not conflict with others'. Relativism thus encounters none of the problems objective morality fails to solve, and elegantly accounts for all human actions.
A criticism of moral relativism is that it fails to provide moral authority for social control and legislation. However, relativism does provide a moral basis for social stability, as there are many universal similarities between human moral values. Without venerating or condemning any particular action, lets human cultures to account for their own stability, allowing change to occur when it must. It imposes neither moral order nor moral chaos, freeing actions from the judgment of binary values and leaves legislation to focus on objectively relevant laws, rather than ones referring to a higher moral truth which, as aforementioned, goes against human plurality.