Ethical Relativism and Moral Nihilism
Introduction
The field of ethics is a broad platform that systematizes, defends, and recommends concepts of right and wrong behavior. Among the concepts involved are Ethical Relativism and Moral Nihilism. Ethical relativism, as explained in Makkula Center for Applied Ethics, is the belief that nothing is objectively wrong or right and that their definitions depend on prevailing views of a specific individual, historical period, or culture. One of the main similarities between moral nihilism and ethical relativism is that they are all meta-ethical theories and that they are theories of nature. On the other hand, unlike ethical relativism, Moral nihilism is a meta-ethical view that nothing is right or wrong (Macnab, Donald George Cecil, 31). Therefore it allows actions for the wrong relative to a specific individual or culture. The goal of this essay is to compare and contrast ethical relativism from moral nihilism.
Moral Nihilism
Moral nihilism, sometimes referred to as ethical nihilism, as stated earlier, is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally wrong or right. Even though nihilism does not imply that human beings should give up on using ethical or moral language. It claims that all forms of murder are not morally wrong (Mackie, 175). Because some may say that such claims are true or false and that they differ depending on the theory. J.L Mackie, for instance, has argued that moral assertions are only valid if there are moral properties, and if there are none, such claims are false. Other versions of the theories have believed that moral statements are not true because they are neither false nor true. Ethical Language denoting the aspects of wrong versus not truth-apt argue that moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist.
The word “Nihilism” comes from the Latin word “nihil,” which means anything or nothing that exists. From the verb, it appears from “annihilate,” meaning to bring to nothing. Philosophers such as Fredrich Nietzche argue that in nihilism, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Values are baseless, and that reason is impotent. Fredrich incorporates two types of moral nihilism which include expressivism theory and error theory
Error Theory of Moral Nihilism
The error theory is one of the most used approaches to explain moral nihilism. It combines cognitivism; the belief that moral language consists of truth-apt statements and that introduction of moral nihilism in it is that there are no moral facts (Macnabb, Donald George Cecil, 35). It generally views the ordinary ethical thought, and discourse is deeply committed to pervasive error. In the long run, it assumes that all moral statements are false on the aspect of ontological claims.
Error theory argues that human beings don’t know that anything is right merely because all moral claims are false. We have no reason at any given incidence have to believe that moral claims are false. Human beings are not justified in considering any application as they have a right to deny and never at any given point been justified in believing any moral claim. Introduction of Global Falsity from error theory further emphasizes that moral beliefs and assertations are false. Because, they claim that specific moral value exists and that do not form a broader perspective exist (Mackie, 177). In other words, it is a presupposition failure kind of claim. Moral beliefs and assertions are never right, as they are neither false nor true. Generally, moral statements and opinions presuppose the existence of moral facts which don’t exist.
Additionally, theorists such as J.L Mackie who lived between 1917 and 1981, in his book of “Ethics Investing Right and Wrong,” meta-ethical defence ethics by arguing that moral claims imply to motivation internalism; an ideology that human beings have a motivation to perform any kind of action which is obliged morally. Such me mentality is false because moral claims consist of the correspondent. For example, “if killing a baby is wrong” is true, then everyone else has a reason, not too unlike psychopath who refutes the opposite. Generally, in moral nihilism, nothing is wrong or immoral; therefore, morality doesn’t exist and that moral statements are either false or non-sensical.
Ethical Relativism
Just like moral nihilism, ethical relativism remains a critical topic in meta-ethics. It has ancient origins with historian Heterotus and sophist Protagoras implementing it. The latter has attracted the attention of Plato in Theatetus. Ancient Chinese philosophers such as Zhuangzi applied relativism in their reasoning. Meta-ethical moral judgment is defined as a true or false argument of moral judgments (Macnabb, Donald George Cecil, 32). Their justification is absolute to the universe even though; it is relative to convictions, traditions or group practices concerning truth-value.
Moral relativism, sometimes known as ethical relativism and reformatted as relativist morality or relativist ethics describes several philosophical positions. The positions are often concerned with the moral judgment that cut across different cultures and people. It argues through descriptive moral relativism that, people disagree fundamentally considering what is moral without the nudge of involving high judgmental criteria. Cultural relativism, on the other hand, believes that ethical standards are established in their culture (Miller, Christian, 485). And therefore serves as a platform for decision-making and that whatever the literature says, then it’s right. Additionally, normative moral relativism holds that because no one is right or wrong, then everyone needs to tolerate the behaviours of others even in times of critical disagreements in areas of morality.
Ethical relativism since time-immemorial has been posed as direct antithesis, especially on moral idealism. Moral idealism is often referred to as ethical idealism which incorporates aspects such as Kantianism in the Enlightenment era. In their reasoning, specific behaviours tend to contrast ideals labelled as moral.
Categories of Ethical Relativism
Descriptive
Descriptive moral relativism explains that there exist fundamental disagreements about the various types of actions that should be taken as some facts hold facts. It is an explanation that different cultures have a different moral principle, and there every law cannot be proven right or wrong. Descriptive relativists fail to fully commit on the initiated commitments of semantics, epistemology or ontology of moral judgments (Miller, Christian, 487). Even in fields such as anthropology and sociology, believes that there exist fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even in times of factual information.
Meta-ethical
It is unpopular among philosophers. However, the remaining percentage believe that people disagree about moral issues. The terms such as good, right or wrong according to them don’t stand subject to universal truth. Instead, they are relative to convictions, traditions or rather the practices of a people or a group. Philosophers such as William Graham Summer were among the most influencing group that discusses meta-ethical. He argues that people consider wrong or right shaped entirely and not primarily by the decisions initiated from their customs, traditions or practices. Because, given the same type of factual information, some societies would disagree on the information provided.
Normative
Normative philosophers not only believe in the meta-ethics thesis but also on normative information that human beings should do mainly. They argue that meta-ethical relativism ought to tolerate the behaviours of others regardless of their moral or cultural standards. Philosophers such as Russell Blackford say that intolerance is at some degree significant, especially when dealing with people with distinct preferences. Human beings need to adapt quietism about moral traditions. That typical norms from different societies are practical and reasonable. David Hume, also has supported the argument by stating that moral judgment has an impact on people’s lives and should be avoided.
Generally, ethical relativism is a theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of people’s culture. Hence, whether an act is wrong or right, it all depends on the moral of society. In other words, no universal standards are meaning, rules that can be applied by all human beings. And, if ethical relativism is correct, then there is no common framework for resolving disputes of ethics in different communities. In as much as several ethicists are rejecting ethical relativism by claiming that moral ethics of communities differ, it remains difficult to agree that fundamental standards underlying these practices are right (Sinhababu, Neil, 45). Human beings can agree and later disagree on the initiated principles. Most of the time, moral beliefs are culturally related. Therefore certain practices such as dress codes, decency or political repression only depend with a universal moral standard set by a particular community. Indeed, one of the most significant arguments connected to ethical relativism is global moral standards. Philosophers believe that in as much as agreements are related to universal principles from different cultures, human beings have an option to follow the practices.
In conclusions, ethical relativism and moral nihilism are different in various ends. While there is one reason that holds them similar, that they are meta-ethics and are theories in nature, they are a lot of difference. Moral relativism believes that truth of values of moral statements is relative to something. Therefore, it depends on different cultures. On the other hand, moral nihilism believes that nothing is immoral or moral. Thus, immorality does not exist and that moral statements are either true or false. Moral relativism means that something is real. The situation and context are realistic in moral relativism, unlike moral nihilism which implies that the judgment is nothingness or negation. They are, however, essential in the field of ethics as they tend to prove aspects as to why incidences are happening. Moral nihilism educates people that nothing can either be intrinsically amoral or honest and that morality is not a real property at all. Moral relativism as well informs the group that in as much as many aspects are connected to principles of ethics; it is essential to hold moral properties which should, however, hold morality judgment regardless of variance.
Works Cited
Macnabb, Donald George Cecil. David Hume: His theory of knowledge and morality. Vol. 4. Routledge, (2019): 23-40.
Mackie, John L. “The third theory of law.” The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers. Routledge, 2017. 173-186.
Miller, Christian B. “Character and situationism: New directions.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20.3 (2017): 459-471.
Sinhababu, Neil. “Ethical Reductionism.” J. Ethics & Soc. Phil. 13 (2018): 32-48.