Relativism, Absolutism, and Universalism

In this course, we will explore ethical relativism, absolutism and universalism. Ethical relativism describes the position that what is good or bad changes depending on the individual or group, and that there are no moral absolutes. Relativists believe that what is right is determined by culture and/or individual belief and that there are no universal laws.
Absolutism, as previously discussed, is the position that, if something is wrong, it is always wrong. In opposition to cultural realtivism, absolutists argue that just because there may be cultural norms endorsing such things as cannibalism, slavery, or having sex with six- year-olds, the norms do not make these acts moral and there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs whether we agree with them or not.
Universalism is a similar concept in that it is the position that what is considered wrong is wrong for all people for all time and if one wants to perform a certain act, one would have to agree that anyone else should be able to do it as well.

[@lucaslockard5779]

Cultural relativism doesn't define the good. It is a theory about how good is defined.
Proponents do say it promotes tolerance, but that is antithetical to the view. (I'm not suggesting the creator of the video disagrees with this.)
If we think that tolerance ought to be universally promoted and one is morally wrong not to, then we are not relativists. I always ask my students, "Do you think we should tolerate the belief that rape is morally acceptable?" Nope. Ok, then you probably don't believe relativism is true. (Believing both is not contradictory, of course.) Does that mean the theory is false? No, the point is that people often misunderstand what this view is saying -- it is NOT saying we should be tolerant. It implies there are no absolute/universal values because values are defined by culture.
Let's say there is a culture that believes tolerance is a weakness and ought to be discouraged and punished. On the relativist view, they aren't 'wrong' because values are defined by the culture and so there is no overarching value about the promotion of tolerance that this culture is violating. Again, if someone argues there is, then they are not relativists.
But really, the biggest problem is that there is no way to define a culture that would unequivocally draw clear boundary lines. Not to mention that any given individual is a part of many different cultures. So, what cultural beliefs should they adopt? The most narrow? The broadest? How dominant must the belief/norm be when there is disagreement among a given culture?
For the record, I am not a universalist or absolutist.

[@NBariDU]

Thanks for your interactive & informative show 💯

[@robespierre3364]

Very cool video, thanks!

[@MaryvalePress]

As a fellow educator I really dislike these kinds of videos. They make giant statements presented as fact which are not fact. Saying, "Anthropologists have found very few universals exist across cultures" is not at all correct. Tell me who says this? This is a commonly accepted fact across anthropologists? No, I don't think so.

[@TheIdealGasLaw]

Can you point to where anthropologists do say there are many commonalities across cultures the world over?

[@MaryvalePress]

@@TheIdealGasLaw James Rachels,
Daniel Bornstein, James Burke, Jared Diamond..... everyone except Ruth Benedict

[@tabasco7915]

Does Hinduism coincide with relativism?

[@braintv495]

any religious belief, and their believers, can adhere to aspects that are relativist, and absolutist. Some "person from x religion" can be a relativist, and the other person of the same religion can be absolutist. people can believe that some of the ideas in "x" religion are universal, while other ideas of the same religion can be relative.

[@tabasco7915]

@@braintv495 After thinking about your assessment, this is what I would conclude. I would think that, that would be a construct for way too much inconsistency and diversion. That would render damaging inconclusiveness, ultimately ill-relevancy. That would reduce your objectives down to no more than just good intentions. The world is full of "good intentions" of many, many degrees. Therefore, I would reject religion and accept regeneration, then having genuine discernment. That way you can experientially and exclusively know truth, eliminating a mixture of unrestrained presuppositions running the risk of deception and uncertainty.

[@BrotherTree1]

We need all three to a balanced degree or were all screwed in unimaginable ways.

[@yekkub9425]

Nah, absolutism is the only good answer. For those who are right, at least. I'm not joking.

[@andrewwalker1377]

@@yekkub9425 You would be wrong then. I am not joking, jut feeling relatively universally smug

[@yekkub9425]

@@andrewwalker1377 Oh yeah universalism is good too, I guess I made this reply without thinking very much lol. But you have to take context into consideration. If you commit genocide and it SOMEHOW does more good than harm, that's a good thing. I doubt any human could do that though.

[@andrewwalker1377]

@@yekkub9425 Yes one universal truth is we all are in need of improvement. One of them being able to better choose between this or that when the actual answer is both and something else as well which we may have little or no knowledge of, yet.

[@justinnamuco9096]

That's not necessarily true.

[@j_5244]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
-John 14:6
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
-Acts 16:31
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
-Matthew 3:2

[@justinjakeashton]

No one cares.