Ever had a massive blowout argument with a friend about whether something was actually "wrong" or just "different"? Maybe it was about how people raise their kids, or perhaps something heavier, like political systems or religious laws in another country. If you’ve ever caught yourself saying, "Well, that’s just their culture," you’ve dipped your toes into the world of the moral relativist.
It's a big term. It sounds like something a philosophy professor would mumble while staring at a dusty chalkboard. But honestly? It’s one of the most practical, messy, and debated concepts in human history.
Basically, a moral relativist believes that there isn’t one single, objective rulebook for morality that applies to every human being on Earth at all times. There is no "moral North Star" that everyone sees from the same angle. Instead, right and wrong are relative. They depend on where you were born, the era you live in, and the specific society you call home. It’s the idea that "good" and "bad" are social constructs, much like the side of the road we drive on or the languages we speak.
The Core Logic of a Moral Relativist
Think about it this way. If you traveled back to 15th-century Aztec society, human sacrifice wasn't seen as a horrific crime by the locals; it was a religious necessity to keep the sun rising. To a modern person, that’s unthinkable. To a moral relativist, neither side is "objectively" right. The Aztec morality was true for the Aztecs, and our morality is true for us.
This isn't just about being "open-minded." It’s a foundational shift in how we view truth.
Ruth Benedict, a pioneer in American anthropology, argued in her work Patterns of Culture that morality is essentially just a convenient term for socially approved habits. She looked at various tribes and realized that behaviors labeled as "abnormal" or "evil" in one group were the honored standard in another. When we say someone is "good," what we are often really saying is that they are "well-adjusted" to the specific rules of their tribe.
But wait. Is everything really up for grabs?
Most people struggle here. If we accept the moral relativist viewpoint fully, we run into a wall. If morality is just a matter of opinion or culture, then how can we ever criticize things like slavery, genocide, or child labor? If a culture says those things are okay, a strict relativist has a hard time saying "No, you’re wrong," because there is no external standard to judge them by. This is the "Relativist’s Trap." It sounds tolerant until you realize it might mean you can't condemn things that feel obviously, viscerally evil.
Why This Idea is Exploding Right Now
Our world has shrunk. A hundred years ago, you mostly interacted with people who shared your exact values. Now? You’re scrolling through TikTok and seeing life in Dubai, Tokyo, and rural Norway all in the span of thirty seconds. We are constantly confronted with different ways of living.
This exposure makes many of us "soft relativists" by default. We want to be respectful. We don’t want to be "moral imperialists" who march into other cultures and tell them they’re doing it wrong. This is the heart of what many call "Cultural Relativism." It’s the academic cousin of the moral relativist mindset, popularized by thinkers like Franz Boas. He believed you couldn't understand a culture's practices without looking at them through their own history and environment.
The Problem of Progress
There’s a weird glitch in the relativist matrix, though. It’s the idea of moral progress.
We generally agree that society is "better" now because we don't have widespread slavery or because women have the right to vote. But if you are a true moral relativist, you can’t actually say we’ve made "progress." You can only say we’ve "changed." To say we’ve improved implies that we are getting closer to some objective "Good," which a relativist says doesn't exist.
📖 Related: Finding Your Fit: Why Every Free Printable Ring Size Chart Isn't Created Equal
If there is no finish line, you aren't actually running a race; you're just wandering around the track.
Common Misconceptions About Being a Moral Relativist
People often confuse relativism with "subjectivism." They aren't quite the same thing.
- Subjectivism says: "Whatever I personally feel is right, is right for me." (The ultimate "you do you" vibe).
- Relativism says: "Whatever my culture/society deems right, is right for that group."
So, a relativist actually believes in rules! They just believe those rules have an expiration date and a geographic border. You can still be a "bad person" in a relativist framework if you break the rules of your own specific culture. You're a rebel, but not because you're breaking a law of the universe—just because you're breaking the local contract.
Then there’s the "Moral Universalist" crowd. These are the folks who disagree with the moral relativist. They argue that certain things are just hard-wired into us. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant or modern thinkers like Sam Harris argue that we can use reason or science to determine what causes human flourishing. If a practice causes objective suffering, they argue, it’s wrong—period. It doesn't matter if a culture has been doing it for a thousand years.
The Real-World Impact
Is this just for people with too much time on their hands? Not really. It shows up in international law, human rights debates, and even corporate ethics.
When a Western company opens a factory in a country with different labor standards, they are navigating the moral relativist minefield. Is it okay to pay lower wages because "that's just the local economy," or is there a universal "fair wage" that applies to everyone? Most people try to find a middle ground. We want to respect culture, but we also feel like some things (like torture) are just universally messed up.
Exploring the Nuance
We often think of this as a binary: either everything is relative or nothing is. But most of us live in the "in-between."
Philosopher David Wong suggests a "pluralistic relativism." He argues that while there isn't just one true morality, there are definitely some wrong ones. Morality, in his view, has to serve two purposes: it has to help individuals live together, and it has to help individuals find meaning. If a moral system is so chaotic that the society collapses, it’s a "bad" system. This gives us a way to judge cultures without needing a single, perfect rulebook.
How to Handle Relativism in Your Own Life
You don't need a degree to deal with this. You just need a bit of intellectual honesty.
When you find yourself judging someone else’s choices or another culture’s traditions, stop. Ask yourself: "Am I judging this based on a universal truth, or just based on how I was raised?"
🔗 Read more: Why Crock Pot Recipes for a Crowd Are Actually Your Best Hosting Hack
Most of the time, it's the latter.
However, don't let the moral relativist tag become an excuse for apathy. Being a relativist doesn't mean you have to stand for nothing. You can still hold your own values deeply. You can still fight for what you believe is right. You just do it with the humility of knowing that your perspective is shaped by your own "where and when."
Actionable Steps for Navigating Moral Differences
To move from theory to practice, consider these shifts in how you interact with "the other":
- Identify Your "Moral Baseline": Write down three things you believe are always wrong. Now, try to find a historical or cultural context where those things were considered right. It’s an uncomfortable exercise, but it reveals where your "universal" values might actually be cultural.
- Practice the "Principle of Charity": When you see a practice that seems immoral, assume the people doing it have a reason that makes sense to them. Try to find that reason before you condemn it. You don't have to agree, but you should understand.
- Distinguish Between Taste and Morality: Often, we treat matters of taste (how people dress, what they eat) as moral issues. A moral relativist mindset helps you peel those away, so you can focus on the stuff that actually impacts human suffering.
- Engage in Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Instead of debating "who is right," ask "what value are you protecting?" Someone might value "authority" while you value "autonomy." Neither is inherently evil, but they lead to very different moral rules.
- Audit Your Internal "Shoulds": Pay attention to how many of your moral judgments start with "They should..." Change that to "In my culture, we value..." and see how the conversation shifts.
Understanding what it means to be a moral relativist isn't about losing your moral compass. It's about realizing that everyone else is carrying a compass, too—they're just all pointed at different poles. By recognizing this, we can stop shouting across the fence and start trying to understand why the fence was built in the first place.