Relativist morality could be seen as unfair, when looked at closely and seen from critics’ point of view it becomes clear that it is easy to question perhaps because of its weakness as a moral system. The weakness could somewhat be perceived as making Relativist morality unfair.
A relativist cannot pass judgement but yet to be true to their name ‘relativist’ they would be practising ‘do not pass judgement’ thus they are preaching to others that they should not do something in order for others to follow relativism. This concludes that relativism is self – refuting because a concept of relativism has been broken in order to follow it. This could be seen as unfair because to put relativist morality into …show more content…
If for example a relativist lived in a society that refuses to punish an individual that kills a child, then they are entitled to not like this as it is their opinion but but they are not obliged to judge the abusers actions as unjust. It is apparent that killing a child is unjust and wrong but yet a relativist has no right to declare the murderer as guilty of wrongdoing, this rise a question ‘If we are certain that murder of a child is wrong, then how can relativism exists?’ How can it be fair to not be able to label something seen as cruel , as unjust and thus wrong how can it be possible to not see this as unjust? And how is this fair on the victim? That their death was in fact not wrong and not unjust because the actions were committed subject to the perpetrator’s moral understanding of what is right and good or because their society claims that this is right and …show more content…
Many individuals will question this because these people that were slaughtered were innocent but yet a relativist would have see these acts as fair, it does not seem fair to have an opinion that these acts were unfair but have to agree that they were fair. How is this view fair for the millions of innocent Jews that were