Charlotte asked:

What is moral relativism?

============

'Moral relativism' is one of the responses you sometimes hear people give in cases of ethical conflict.
For example the Romans fed Christians to wild beasts and kept slaves as gladiators, whereas we do
not, and regard it as wrong. You can either respond that we are morally more enlightened than the
Romans were, that we today have got it right; or you can opt for the relativistic line that there is no
answer to these kinds of question. So moral relativism is a denial that there is any single moral code
that has universal validity.

Relativists need not deny that there is such a thing as moral truth, although their account of truth will
be very different from an absolutist like Kant. Moral truth, to the relativist, is relative to factors which
are culturally and historically contingent. So you can be a meta-ethical relativist about truth and
justifiability. The wide variety of ethical beliefs in the world is perhaps a point in its favour. How do you
even assess the truth of something outside of your own background, language and community?

You can also be a relativist in a slightly different, 'normative' way. This would be to say that we ought
to hold that the values of others are as valid as our own. Anthropology has thrown up an exotic array
of practises from distant cultures which we simply cannot relate to and even find distasteful
(infanticide, cannibalism, head-hunting etc). A moral relativist might claim that we have no normative
grounds for judging these kinds of practise by our own moral standards. See my answers to Russ,
Charlotte and Duane for some practical examples, and see Geoffrey Klempner's answer to Diana for
some thoughts on the 'cultural defence'.

Adam Gatward