by Tucker Lieberman

Created on: November 06, 2011

Moral relativism and hypocrisy seem to be confused with some regularity.

For example, Raya Pickett blogged, "If you’re going to condemn people on a certain subject, but not others, is that moral relativism?  And shouldn’t you look into your own life and re-evaluate yourself as well?" (July 29, 2011)  Actually, such inconsistent condemnation seems to be simple hypocrisy, not moral relativism.

Scott Lazarowitz similarly observed that American exceptionalism allows that "it is okay for the U.S. and its government to occupy (i.e. trespass on) foreign lands, but it is not okay for foreign governments to occupy our territory," and he labeled this hypocrisy as moral relativism. (Sept 22, 2011)

Alexander Netherton complained about soccer players who break the rules.  To the rhetorical objection, "Luis Nani dives and you never see Manchester United fans complaining about him," Netherton answered that "two wrongs do not make a right, and it's mystifying that this simple lesson has not yet been grasped. Moral relativism is as lazy as it is hypocritical." (Oct. 8, 2011)

To evaluate these statements, we should first define "moral relativism" and "hypocrisy".

Moral relativism has been defined many ways.  Let's begin with what it is not.  It is generally agreed that moral relativism is the opposite of - or finds its clearest contrast against - moral absolutism.  Moral absolutism is the position that determinations of right and wrong are somehow embedded in the fabric of the universe, possibly by the hand of God, and therefore at least some important moral questions have answers that people can discover in roughly the same way that they would discover facts about history, math, or science.

Moral relativism does not assume that there are transcendentally correct answers to moral questions.  This philosophy instead believes that values are created and developed by individuals, cultures, religions, authority figures, institutions, and/or systems of thought - and therefore, that values can change over time.  It tends to take a more socio-biological approach, focusing on how people actually think and behave.  It assumes that no important transcendental moral truths exist because, even if there are moral facts, there is no reliable way of discovering them and therefore they do not play an important role in human moral life.

As the word "relativism" may suggest, a relativist ethical analysis tends to focus on relationships

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>