Hey! So, I stumbled on this theory through a book “The State of Affairs” which basically focuses on rethinking the term “infidelity“.
I’m always almost in a ” right timing” sort of bond with books in read, so you can imagine my mental and physical moans of satisfaction while reading this.
Generally, the theory of Moral Relativism argues that nobody is objectively right or wrong and so, therefore, one ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist.
In hopes that I don’t bore you but somehow hoping, you share my excitement about this topic, I’ll like to properly explain the three variations of this theory before I drop my conclusive lines.
The first is the descriptive variation, which to my understanding, concerns the sociological and anthropology. This recognizes the different values of culture and it’s history but still understands how inconclusive it would be to assume that a single moral or cultural framework can work for all.
The second is meta-ethical variation, which I so rebelliously recognize with. It talks about disagreements on moral issues “what is wrong or right /bad or good”, which do not stand subjecting to the universal truth. (I mean, who sets these rules for us to follow? Who knows the start of time? The end of time?)
Reading this, introduced me to the topic “Moral Universalism” and I can promise you, this is a topic I enjoy getting lost in. *fingers crossed* wait for the mental sauce.
Finally, we have the normative variation which to me is the most basic explanation of this theory, “Tolerance“. Going to say that one ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.
The sweet part of this research was my discovery of the argument by Russell Blackford “we need not adopt a quietism about moral traditions that cause hardship and suffering. Nor need we passively accept the moral norms of our own respective societies, to the extent that they are ineffective or counterproductive or simply unnecessary”
To me, that is a brilliant argument because why reading this, my mind began to comb through different cultures and moral standards which come off as absurd, cruel and outright stupid (just joking!)
Well, in summary, on this highly criticized meta-ethical seat, here’s where I stand:
The basic on which morals should stand is on love. Hear me out, that is the universal language, emotion, feeling…
If those beliefs promote the survival and successful reproduction of the species or multiplication of species… So be it!
When it comes to religion, there is the argument that religious and cultural norms lack factual content, forgetting the fact that logic still plays a role in spirituality and social structures.
There is also the argument for the lack of arbitration, which for the life of me, I still don’t understand.
However, I do not see how one can practice meta-ethical relativism and won’t necessarily object to develop an opinion and argument.
Going to stop here before it becomes a sort of thesis but I have to say a big thank you to Esther Perel for this wonderful book! Google for Wikipedia and Wikipedia for most of these information!
Love and light!