IndexIntroductionThe Decision Making Process of Moral RelativismCounterarguments against Moral RelativismConclusionReferencesIntroductionIn our different societies or communities today, people have various ways in which they behave or react to situations, as well as different reasons for making decisions in order to ensure compliance. The general discipline that ensures this is known as ethics. Ethics deals with what is good and bad in relation to moral duty and obligation. Since humans are rational, they have free will when it comes to making decisions. However, these decisions are guided by principles known as morals. Morality, in simple terms, refers to the dos and don'ts of an individual. Ultimately it is a personal compass of right and wrong. In short, an external ethic; they come from social systems while morality comes from within an individual. When it comes to morality, people can make their decisions based on what the immediate individual/society thinks (moral relativism) or on moral facts and these facts are not a matter of opinion (moral objectivism). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Decision Making on Moral Relativism Moral relativism (according to Michel Foucault (1926-1984) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)) is a matter of opinion and involves an individual's actions depending on what the individual thinks it is right or wrong. It also involves what the immediate society or community perceives as right or wrong. These “moral specifications” differ from person to person and from community to community. That is, shoplifting might be considered right depending on the situation the individual or community is in. Moral objectivism (as advocated by, however, holds the idea that what is right or wrong does not depend on what an individual thinks is right or wrong but rather is based on moral facts that are generally known as right or wrong. It takes into account the consequences of an action (i.e., the right thing to do is the one that is likely to bring happiness overall) as well as the type of act that is based on the categorical imperative (i.e., the right type of act is what is meant to be a universal law.) John Finnis and Aquinas are notable moral objectivists is right and decisions should generally be made based on this view Counterarguments against moral relativism To justify my position, I would contrast theories in relation to moral relativism First, based on the views of moral relativists, one could say that they believe in the theory that just because they like something or a decision that is beneficial to them or their society means that it is good or right. Simply put, they believed that “ABC is good” is synonymous with “I like ABC” or “ABC is good” is synonymous with “ABC is ordered by my company”. (Huemer, 1992). What relativists are basically saying is that because someone steals bread just for the joy it brings them when they are hungry, it means it is good and evidently right. This theory is clearly wrong because relativists are not clear about the fact that something that is good is different from what is liked. Objectivists, however, understand the fact that things should be done/decisions should be made not to satisfy one's desires but for the sake of doing what is morally right. Furthermore, calling something good expresses a value or normative judgment while something that is liked by someone or, in this case, ordered by society, expresses a descriptive judgment and the result is an error.