Moral relativism and universal morality
Are some moral rules true for everyone, everywhere, or do right and wrong depend on people, cultures and situations? Relativists say moral judgments are true only relative to a group. Universalists say some hold for everyone.
What it is
Different societies have different customs about food, marriage, honour and punishment. This raises an old question. When we say that something is wrong, are we describing something that holds for everyone, or only for people who share our way of life? Moral relativism says it is the second: a moral judgment is true or false only relative to a standpoint, such as a culture or a tradition, and no standpoint is privileged over the others.
The opposite view, often called universalism or objectivism, says that at least some moral claims are true whatever any group believes.
The main views
- Relativism. The truth or justification of a moral judgment depends on the traditions and practices of a group. 'Polygamy is wrong' may be true for one society and false for another.
- Universalism. Some moral judgments are true for everyone. When people disagree, one side may be wrong, often because of a factual mistake or poor reasoning, and disagreement can often be resolved when people are well informed and reasonable.
An example
Imagine two societies, one that allows a custom and one that forbids it. A relativist says each is right by its own standard and there is no further standard to appeal to. A universalist says that at most one of them can be right, or that both are partly mistaken, because there is a fact about the custom independent of what either believes. Now take a case that nearly everyone condemns, such as torturing a child for fun. Many find it hard to accept that this is wrong only for some societies.
Why people still disagree
- Disagreement looks deep, and also shallow. Societies differ on many matters. They also agree widely on prohibitions against killing, stealing and lying. Whether the differences go all the way down is itself disputed.
- Moral progress. If right and wrong are relative to a society, it is hard to say that ending slavery was an improvement and not just a change. It is also hard for anyone to criticise their own society's standards.
- Which group counts? People belong to many groups at once: a family, a country, a faith. Relativism has to say which one fixes the standard.
- It is not the same as tolerance. Many people think relativism teaches us to respect other cultures, but the connection is weaker than it looks. A universalist can also value tolerance, and a relativist's own tolerance would be only one more relative standard.
Written by epchē in our own words, and checked against independent sources on 8 October 2026. The sources are listed below.
Philosophies that answer it
Where each philosophy leans on this question, from the same positions the walk uses.
Right and wrong depend on people
Some things are wrong for everyone
Sources we used
- Moral Relativism · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, read on 8 October 2026
- Moral Relativism · Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, read on 8 October 2026