1|Page

Differences between Moral Relativism and Moral Pluralism; the advantage of Moral Pluralism
in Society

Introduction
In this paper, I will discuss the statement of moral pluralism is better able to respect and
recognize other cultures than moral relativism based on the writing of Neil Levy. Firstly, I will
discuss the definitions of both the moral relativism and moral pluralism continued by explaining
their differences. In conclusion I will discuss the reasons why moral pluralism is a better one in
recognizing and respecting other cultures on the basis of Myanmar context.

Moral Relativism
Moral relativism can have variety of forms. One type of moral relativism is a substantial
moral doctrine which means we ought to respect other cultures, and allow them to solve moral
problems as they see fit. ( Tännsjö, 2007)
Another type, which this essay will mainly code, is called metaethical doctrine. It
means that moral relativism are not absolute and not universal but relative and particular.
Moral relativism is only valid for a particular place, time, community, tradition, culture or group
of persons. In other words, moral relativism is the thesis that moral claims are true only relative
to some standard of framework that is not itself uniquely justified; there is no single right
morality and there is a variety of possible moralities. (Boot, 2014)
Under this metaethical moral relativism, another three forms can be categorized. The
first kind of this moral metaethical relativism is semantic or indexica moral relativism. According
to this moral relativism, when we pass moral judgments, we make an implicit reference to
some system of morality of our own. When any one says that a certain action is right, his/her
statement is elliptic. What the person really saying is that, according to some adequate moral
framework or system to which the person adhere, for example the one prevailing in his culture,
this action is permitted.
Another kind of metaethical moral relativism is called epistemic. According to this
relativism it is possible that, a person who belongs to one culture makes a certain moral
judgment, such as that this action is right, and another person who is from another culture
makes the judgment that the very same action is wrong. They may have just as good reasons
for their respective judgments while being fully informed about all the facts equally
imaginative, and so forth. They would still hold on to their respective conflicting judgments.
They are each fully justified in their belief in conflicting judgments.
There is a third kind of metaethical moral relativism, namely, ontological. According to
this, when two persons pass conflicting moral verdicts on a certain action, they may both be
right. Neither of them makes judgments with any implicit reference to any system of norms.
Both of them use their moral vocabulary in an absolute sense. An objectivist non-natural moral
analysis, in the style of G.E. Moore or Henry Sidgwick, of what they say gives a correct representation of
what they are doing. Still, for all that, they pass conflicting judgments. The explanation why they can
both, in an absolute sense, be 'right' in their judgments, is that they inhabit different moral socially
constructed universes. So while it is true in the first person's moral universe that a certain action is right,
it is true in the second person's moral universe that the very same action is wrong ( Tännsjö, 2007).
2|Page

According to Harman, a moral judgment is from a convention or a notion that is shared

by a particular group of people. This means a person is assigned to do ‘you ought to do X’
cannot be an absolute moral truth or false. These norms are necessary to live harmoniously to
reside in a community but those norms cannot be considered as absolute truth.
For this reason, moral relativism cannot make any moral judgment by saying that, ‘right
or wrong’. It rather reflects that ‘we do not practice murder in our culture’, ‘our religious belief
disapprove abortion’. Since moral relativism matters within a particular culture, context, there
is no statement of universal truth, universal standard of moral judgment. The implication of
these different moral values, moral demands rely on the norms, values, standard and culture of
the social community ( Tännsjö, 2007). Thus, none will find a single standard of moral relativism
in the globe. This is why the justification of moral judgments is relative rather than absolute, so
is the argument.
Paul Boghosian suggests that a morality is constituted by opinions about moral right and
wrong. So, he concludes that the proper response to the thought that there is not a single true
morality is to stop believing in moral right and wrong. The proper response is moral nihilism not
moral relativism (Boghossian, 2011).

Moral Pluralism
Moral pluralism is the thesis that there is a plurality of conflicting and incommensurable
moral values or aspects of justice, which constitute an incomplete coherence, not capable of
being captured in an objective and impartial, complete moral theory. Different moral theories
are possible depending upon which values or principles are included(Boot, 2014).
Value pluralism sometimes have conflicting and incompatible in one event. The value in
one condition cannot be remain with the other value together in one condition. Isaiah Berlin
summarizes this ‘incomplete compatibility’ of values as follows:
“The notion of the perfect whole, the ultimate solution in which all good things coexist
seem to me not merely unobtainable – that is a truism – but conceptually incoherent. Some
among the great goods cannot live together. That is a conceptual truth. We are doomed to
choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss.” (Berlin, 1969. P 170)
An example of moral pluralism is the idea that the moral life of a monk is incompatible
with that of a father, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable.
Alister E. McGrath categorized moral pluralism into three elements in the context of
North America. He said there are three major constituent elements in moral pluralism.
1. An intellectual pluralism: the expression of this is found in postmodernism, which
asserts that there is no objective truth. Plurality of beliefs is thus inevitable and to be
encouraged. As a result, those who claim to have access to truth are to be regarded with
something between suspicion and derision.
2. A religious pluralism, which takes its starting point from the undeniable observation
that many different religions exist in North America, and proceeds to draw the conclusion that
they are all equally valid manifestations of the same ultimate reality. Recognizing that religions
have ethical beliefs associated with them, this leads to the assertion that moral pluralism is to
be tolerated, indeed, even celebrated.
3. A prevailing liberal political philosophy, which encourages plurality of beliefs and
actions, and places considerable emphasis upon individual freedom of action. Moral pluralism is
3|Page

the inevitable consequence of any political philosophy which emphasizes toleration and
individual self-determination (McGrath, 1994).
With regards to ethical problems, moral pluralism generally have two different
approaches to an ethical problem, (1) that each relevant principle be considered in every
instance, or (2) that one principle be operative in one type of domain or sphere of interests and
another principle be operative in another type of domain or sphere of interest.
Like other moral moral theory, there is a need to have a solid philosophical grounding in
moral pluralism and it needs to be itself inherently pluralistic. So that, it can have plural
understanding of what it is to think morally which means radically different than the application
of a rule to a concrete situation. In summarize,” the switch from monism to pluralism cannot be
accomplished by a synthesis of existing theoretical alternatives for acting in the moral situation
but through a radical reconstruction of the understanding of the moral situation”( Buchholz.etl,
1996 )
In this essay, my focus will be particularly from a liberal political philosophy one. In the
following, I will discuss the differences between moral relativism (particularly metaethical) and
moral pluralism (particularly liberal political philosophy) one.

Differences between Moral Relativism and Moral Pluralism

Moral Relativism Moral Pluralism

No fixed absolute morality Existence of different ‘right’ moralities

Particular Diversity

No Universal morality Universal Morality

Right ordering of values No right ordering of values

Humility Humility

Tolerance to other cultures Respect and Recognize other cultures

According to this graph, the very first obvious difference is, moral relativism declares
that there is no fixed absolutes morality while the moral pluralism is stating the existence
different moralities, different viewpoints within the same society.
It has been discussed in the definition that moral relativism is relative and particular,
only valid for a particular place, time, community, tradition, culture. On the other hand,
4|Page

pluralism, itself implies divergence. Indeed, in its neutral sense, ‘pluralism’ is simply another
word for diversity.
According to the pluralist, values are universal but again moral relativism believes there
is no universal morality. Even though they do not put different weights on them, moral pluralist
said that all human beings will recognize most important values as generically human. Different
persons, groups, cultures or societies assign a wide variety of weights to the different values
and so determine differing moral orderings.
In terms of treating with other cultures, Neil Levy argues that pluralism can recognize
the value of aspects of other cultures more than moral relativism without having a sense of
obligation to adopt those values. It bears more reasons for respect than moral relativism.
Respect is defined as ‘seeing powerful reasons for what the other believe’.
On the other hand, Neil Levy says moral relativism is only compatible with tolerance:
permitting what is actually regarded as objectionable. Like moral relativism, moral pluralism has
also other positive moral implications of humility. It explains moral diversity: no single morality
will be capable of giving full expression to all human values. Each culture emphasizes different
goods to different extents. Any adequate moral system can differ from others in the emphasis it
places upon goods that we all recognize( Boot, 2014 and Levey, 2002).

Advantages of Moral Pluralism

When it is considered about the morality, there are many problems inside of it as many
moral reasoning are incompatible to each other in many situations. Many authors deal with the
problem in different ways, probably the most instructive are the words of Manuel Velasquez
(1992: 104-106) in his well known textbook.

“Our morality, therefore, contains three main kinds of moral considerations each of
which emphasizes certain morally important aspects of our behavior, but no one of
which captures all the factors that must be taken into account in making moral
judgments. Utilitanan standards consider only the aggregate social welfare but ignore
the individual and how that welfare is distributed. Moral nghts consider the individual
but discount both aggregate well-being and distributive considerations. Standards of
justice consider distributive issues but they ignore aggregate social welfare and the
individual as such. These three kinds of moral considerations do not seem to be
reducible to each other yet all three seem to be necessary parts of our morality. That is,
there are some moral problems for which utilitarian considerations are decisive, while
for other problems the decisive considerations are either the rights of individuals or the
justice of the distributions involved...We have at this time no comprehensive moral
theory capable of determining precisely when utilitarian considerations become
'sufficiently larges to outweigh narrow infringements on a conflicting right or standard
of justice or when considerations of justice become 'important enough' to outweigh
infringements on conflicting rights. Moral philosophers have been unable to agree on
any absolute rules for making such judgments. There are, however, a number of rough
criteria that can guide us in these matters . . .But these criteria remain rough and
intuitive. They lie at the edges of the light that ethics can shed on moral reasoning. “
5|Page

Since we have seen the conflicting situation of these moral theories, I would like to
propose that moral pluralism is the middle way or a theory which can accept inclusively to
these existing moral theories which cannot be bargain or should not be compromised. It is also
one of the advantages of moral pluralism.
Like what Neil Levy said, moral pluralism is truly better applicable for the world in this
situation. In this age of globalization, the global integration is deeper and stronger. The
religions, cultures, traditions and dialects are more interactive. In this kind of scenario, it is no
surprising that we see more clashes between ideologies, cultures religions, values and interests.
Political clashes between liberal democracy, communism and socialism, religious clashes
between Christian, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu and the growing population of atheists are the best
examples to have a clear understanding of the effects of this global diversity. Meanwhile a
country cannot isolate itself anymore in order to survive and better be open to the global
market so that they can have more trade exchanges and build a modern nation. Even one of the
most isolated countries like North Korea still in strong tied relationship with Russia and China.
The globalization force international community to have more integration at the same
time, more sensitive clashes, conflicts can be automatically anticipated. Unless the world has a
common ground to solve this problem, more terrorists, more attacks can be expected. To have
a peaceful coexistence in the world, every religion, ideology must give respect to other cultures
and beliefs, which is a concept of moral pluralism. Different people have their own standard of
living, their own definition of being religiosity, moral values and numerous ways of interpreting
the concept of justice.
Human right fighters have to inclusively consider the right of women, gay, lesbian and
even animal rights this time, extending their area of concern not just the color, race and
religion matters. The western liberal democracy countries need to learn and give respect to the
Confucianism and communist philosophy in order to have a win-win relationship with China for
trade and economy.
After presenting about the global facts, I would like to discuss about the situation of
Myanmar and explaining the need of moral pluralism concept.
Like some other countries, Myanmar is a very diverse country in terms of ethnicity,
religions, dialects, cultures and races. In Myanmar, although Buddhism is the major religion, it is
built with many other religions such as Christian, Muslim, Hindu and animism since its ancient
time even before becoming the Myanmar as a country. Many regions and ethnics people with
their own autonomy practiced their own religion activities, traditions, and cultural practices. In
1947, all the ethnic leaders greed and signed on a contract of becoming as a country.
With this kind background, there are (8) major ethnics and 135 tribes residing in the
country with more than 150 dialects are speaking. The cultural impact of people migrating from
China, India and Bangladesh is also huge to us. Many religion clashes even growing stronger in
Myanmar at this moment and has one of the world’s longest civil war in the war. One
perspective of the roots of this situation is lacking respect to other cultures, ignoring their
identities, religious belief and native languages. The religious conflicts and violence are still
happening and the civil war is unstoppable.
The tolerance concept alone is not enough in this situation as tolerance has its own
limitation. Unless the country established an idea of pluralism, Myanmar will be one of the
failed state continuously and impossible to have a peaceful coexistence. The demographic
6|Page

profiles of the world and Myanmar are showed below to show the divergence of the global
world and the country, Myanmar.

Conclusion
In conclusion, after looking the above facts, data and realities that the global world is
experiencing, I agree to the argument of Neil Levy that moral pluralism is a better option for a
diverse society, country.
Primarily, the basic step for peaceful coexistence within a diverse society is to accept
the truth which may be outside of the box, beyond our own thought. It is seen that the moral
pluralism is holding this concept. Secondly, after accepting the theory and morality outside of
our own boundary, the higher step to have this peaceful existence is not only to accept other
cultures and moralities but also to recognize and respect their differences. These two steps can
be regarded as very simple steps and process to apply the moral pluralism in order to build a
peaceful society.
7|Page

Myanmar Demographic Profile (2014)

Population 55,746,253 
note: estimates for this country take into
account the effects of excess mortality due to
AIDS; this can result in lower life expectancy,
higher infant mortality, higher death rates,
lower population growth rates, and changes in
the distribution of population by age and sex
than would otherwise be expected (July 2014
est.)
Population growth 1.03% (2014 est.)
Net migration rate -0.3 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2014 est.)
urban population: 32.6% of total population
(2011)
Urbanization
rate of urbanization: 2.49% annual rate of
change (2010-15 est.)
at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female
0-14 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-24 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
25-54 years: 0.99 male(s)/female
Sex ratio
55-64 years: 0.99 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.77 male(s)/female
total population: 0.99 male(s)/female (2014
est.)
total population: 65.94 years
Life expectancy at
male: 63.57 years
birth
female: 68.46 years (2014 est.)
noun: Burmese (singular and plural)
Nationality
adjective: Burmese
Burman 68%, Shan 9%, Karen 7%, Rakhine 4%,
Ethnic groups
Chinese 3%, Indian 2%, Mon 2%, other 5%
Buddhist 89%, Christian 4% (Baptist 3%,
Religions Roman Catholic 1%), Muslim 4%, Animist 1%,
other 2%
Burmese (official)
Languages note: minority ethnic groups have their own
languages

Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/burma/demographics_profile.html
8|Page

World Demographic Profile (2014)

7,174,611,584 (July 2014 est.)

top ten most populous countries (in millions): China 1355.69; India
Population 1,236.34; United States 318.89; Indonesia 253.61; Brazil 202.66;
Pakistan 196.17; Nigeria 177.16; Bangladesh 166.28; Russia 142.47;
Japan 127.10
18.7 births/1,000 population
Birth rate note: this rate results in about 255 worldwide births per minute or 4.3
births every second (2014 est.)
at birth: 1.07 male(s)/female
0-14 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
15-24 years: 1.062 male(s)/female
Sex ratio 25-54 years: 1.022 male(s)/female
55-64 years: 0.955 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.802 male(s)/female
total population: 1.014 male(s)/female (2014 est.)
Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%,
Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%,
Religions
Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions
10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)
Mandarin Chinese 12.44%, Spanish 4.85%, English 4.83%, Arabic 3.25%,
Hindi 2.68%, Bengali 2.66%, Portuguese 2.62%, Russian 2.12%, Japanese
1.8%, Standard German 1.33%, Javanese 1.25% (2009 est.)
note 1: percents are for "first language" speakers only; the six UN
languages - Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), English, French, Russian, and
Spanish (Castilian) - are the mother tongue or second language of about
half of the world's population, and are the official languages in more
than half the states in the world; some 150 to 200 languages have more
Languages than a million speakers
note 2: all told, there are an estimated 7,100 languages spoken in the
world; aproximately 80% of these languages are spoken by less than
100,000 people; about 50 languages are spoken by only 1 person;
communities that are isolated from each other in mountainous regions
often develop multiple languages; Papua New Guinea, for example,
boasts about 836 separate languages
note 3: approximately 2,300 languages are spoken in Asia, 2,150, in
Africa, 1,300 in the Pacific, 1,060 in the Americas, and 280 in Europe

World Demographic Profile (2014)

Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/world/demographics_profile.html
9|Page

Reference:

Berlin. 1969. ‘That we cannot have everything is a necessary, not a contingent truth’ (1969:
170).
Boot, Martijn. 2014. Lecture text of Moral Relativism. Waseda University.
Harman,Gilbert. 2012. Moral Relativism Explained. Princeton University
Boghossian, Paul. July 24, 2011. “The Maze of Moral Relativism,” New York Times.
McGrath, Alister E. 1994. Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism. Center for
Applied Christian Ethic. Wheaton College.
Buchholz, Rogene A and Rosenthal, Sandra B. Jul, 1996. Toward a New Understanding of Moral
Pluralism. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 3. pp. 263-275.
Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 2007. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the
AnalyticTradition, Vol. 135, No. 2 . pp. 123-143.
Velasquez,M . G. 1992. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Levy, Nei. 2002. Moral Relativism. A short introduction. Oxford: Oneworld.

Websites:

Index Muni: Demographic Profile of Burma. Retrieved from

(http://www.indexmundi.com/burma/demographics_profile.html) accessed on January 25,
2015.

Index Muni: Demographic Profile of the World. Retrieved from

(http://www.indexmundi.com/world/demographics_profile.html) accessed on January 25,
2015.