Moral Pluralism Quotes

Liberal relativism has its roots in the natural right tradition of tolerance or in the notion that everyone has a natural right to the pursuit of happiness as he understands happiness; but in itself it is a seminary of intolerance.

Morality is not merely different in different communities. Its level is not the same for all the component groups within the same community.

The fate of an epoch that has eaten of the tree of knowledge is that it must...recognize that general views of life and the universe can never be the products of increasing empirical knowledge, and that the highest ideals, which move us most forcefully, are always formed only in the struggle with other ideals which are just as sacred to others as ours are to us.

My version of relativism is pluralistic and attributes functions to morality that in combination with human nature place limits on what could count as a true morality. Unlike many other relativists, I do not hold that people are subject to a morality because they all belong to a certain group. That is, I don't hold that being a member of a group makes one's subject to some set of generally accepted norms. What is true is that others around us teach us morality and moral language, so they inevitably influence us.

The moral earth, too, is round! The moral earth, too, has its antipodes! The antipodes, too, have their right to exist! There is still another world to be discovered--and more than one! Set sail, you philosophers!

Despite what they tell you, there are simply no moral absolutes in a complex world.

It's simply untrue that religion provides the only framework for a universal morality.

It is not for me to enforce my morals on others.

There is no moral absolute, and this leads us to situational ethics, which unfortunately is being taught in public schools all over America. This means that right and wrong is dependent upon the circumstances.

Whatever anybody believes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, it's fair enough, and works, and I think, is real, and matters. I don't happen to have those beliefs, as much, you know, I don't believe in those things.

If we did find that (most) mathematically gifted people possessed a special gene, would implanting such a gene in our children ever be justified? If certain traits are objectively superior to others, should we not promote active potentials to acquire such traits? The difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that we live in a pluralist society. If people were to disagree about the ranking of certain characteristics, how would we decide which ranking is the correct one? It may be true that some characteristics are objectively superior to others (or better before God). And it may be true that many people would be capable of picking out a few such superior qualities. But who is to be appointed supreme judge?

In passing, we should note this curious mark of our own age: the only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence that there is no absolute.

Multiculturalists argue that different cultural values are morally equivalent. That's nonsense.

I accept the teachings of my own church in terms of how I live, how my wife and I live, what we teach our kids. But I don't think the teachings of my church are such that I should legislate that for everybody else.

Not only are the varieties of morality innumerable, but some of them are conflicting with each other.

It is possible that the distinction between moral relativism and moral absolutism has sometimes been blurred because an excessively consistent practice of either leads to the same practical result — ruthlessness in political life.

For we, too, have our ideals, even if we differ from those who have tried to establish a monopoly of idealism.

If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict - and of tragedy - can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition. This gives its value to freedom as Acton conceived of it - as an end in itself, and not as a temporary need, arising out of our confused notions and irrational and disordered lives, a predicament which a panacea could one day put right.