Video - Cultural Morality: Relativism vs Absolutism

Imagine a world where what is right in one culture is wrong in another. Ethical relativism suggests that moral standards are culturally based and therefore subject to a society's norms. In contrast, moral absolutism posits that there are universal moral principles applicable to all humans, regardless of culture or personal beliefs. Philosophers like Ruth Benedict have championed relativism, arguing that morality is a social construct, while Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative stands as a cornerstone of absolutism, asserting that some actions are inherently right or wrong. But, what happens when these two views collide? Consider the practice of arranged marriages in some cultures, deemed morally acceptable by those societies but criticized by others as oppressive. Can we truly judge another culture's practices by our own standards, or do universal principles like human rights transcend cultural boundaries? The debate is intricate and ongoing. While ethical relativism promotes tolerance and understanding, moral absolutism strives for a common ethical ground. Perhaps, the key lies not in choosing one over the other but in recognizing the value and limitations of both perspectives, fostering a dialogue that respects cultural diversity while upholding fundamental human dignity. Ultimately, the quest for a balanced moral framework continues, reminding us that philosophy is not about definitive answers but an ever-evolving conversation about our shared humanity.