Is morality merely a local custom, or are there universal truths we can discover?

Ideas & Philosophy · Published 3 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: Ethical relativism suggests that right and wrong are not objective facts but social products that vary by culture or individual preference. If no universal standard exists to judge these differences, how do we navigate conflicting values? This perspective challenges our deepest assumptions about the nature of morality and human progress.

Ethical relativism posits that moral truths are not absolute. Instead, they are relative to the individual or the society in which they arise. This view, famously traced back to the 5th-century BC historian Herodotus, observes that different cultures maintain distinct customs, with each society viewing its own practices as superior. Anthropologists and sociologists often support this by noting that morality is a social product; practices like infanticide or polygamy are deemed acceptable or unacceptable based entirely on the internal standards of the society in question. Because there is no culture-neutral benchmark to evaluate these codes, relativists argue that no society’s moral framework is objectively better than another.

Beyond social standards, some philosophers emphasize individual sentiment. The 18th-century thinker David Hume argued that moral beliefs stem from emotion rather than reason. This evolved into 20th-century emotivism, where moral language serves to express personal approval or disapproval rather than state objective facts. This approach is often linked to postmodernism, which emerged in the 1960s and 70s. Postmodernists, influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, reject the Enlightenment-era belief in universal, objective truths. Nietzsche argued that our beliefs are merely perspectives, and he famously critiqued Judeo-Christian ethics as a 'slave morality' born of fear, suggesting that stronger individuals should create their own values.

The appeal of relativism often lies in its promotion of tolerance. If no objective moral standard exists, a 'live and let live' attitude toward other cultures seems logical. However, this position faces significant criticism. Critics argue that it is difficult to derive a normative 'ought'—such as the duty to be tolerant—from purely relativistic premises. If all morality is subjective, the command to tolerate others is itself just another relative preference. Furthermore, many argue that we need not remain passive toward traditions that cause suffering, suggesting that we can defend our own values or critique other cultures for failing to meet their own stated goals without needing a universal moral law.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Is morality an objective truth or a human expression?
• Is morality a fact of the universe or just a human feeling?
• Is morality a set of objective facts or just a human invention?
• Is morality a fact of nature or a human invention?
• Cicero invented the Latin word behind morality to translate one Greek term
• Why ancient China's most practical school of thought vanished after achieving peace.
• Did the Ancient Greeks believe music could fundamentally shape human morality and character?
• Does economic growth inevitably lead to democracy, or is that a dangerous myth?
• Newton never called himself a scientist; the word did not exist yet
• Modern philosophy opened with a man trying to doubt absolutely everything
• The first Greek naturalists were nicknamed simply the nature people
• Is misanthropy a rational response to human flaws or a path to misery?

More in Philosophy · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics