Moral Relativism vs. Moral Realism

The Big Question

Are moral truths real — features of the universe that we discover, like mathematical facts? Or are they constructed — products of culture, biology, and human agreement?

Moral Relativism

The view that moral truths vary between cultures, periods, or individuals. What is right for one society may be wrong for another.

Arguments for relativism:

• Moral practices vary enormously across cultures
• There seems to be no way to prove moral claims the way we prove scientific ones
• Imposing one culture's morality on another seems arrogant

Problems with relativism:

• It makes it impossible to criticize practices like slavery or genocide in other cultures
• It confuses the fact that people disagree about morality with the claim that there are no right answers
• Even relativists typically believe some things (like torturing children for fun) are really wrong

Moral Realism

The view that some moral claims are objectively true, independent of what anyone believes.

Arguments for realism:

• Some moral progress seems real (abolition of slavery, expansion of rights)
• We can give reasons for moral claims and evaluate them logically
• The phenomenology of moral experience — moral obligations feel binding, not optional

A Middle Path?

Some philosophers argue for constructivism — moral truths are not "out there" in the universe, but they are not arbitrary either. They are constructed by rational beings reasoning together under conditions of fairness (like Rawls's veil of ignorance).