In the space of multiculturalism, the problem of ethical values and their equivalence is significant. Different people with their values try to get along in the same territory without conflicts. Modern humanities have thoroughly studied the problem of cultural and ethical relativism, and this position is very convenient in studying other peoples. Ethical relativism has boundaries that need to be clarified and justified. On the issue of ethical relativism, it is essential to find a balance between moral nihilism and ethical absolutism.
Ethnocentrism is a worldview or a system of worldviews, according to which one’s own culture, in which a person lived and developed, is a model for other cultures. Ethnocentrism has become a cultural problem, as it served as a cause and an embryo for cultural and racial intolerance. Usually, people living in different cultures understand the relativism of moral norms adopted in a particular territory. These ethical views are based on each person’s experience, and then people sincerely consider ethnocentrism to be an ethical issue. Respecting other cultures can also be challenged as to whether this value is universal, if as there are no universal values. Moral relativism has its limits, and the basic principles, for example, good and evil, do not relate to it since these concepts are present in all cultures and can be compared.
In the case of Socrates, perhaps it is not just a rejection of one’s own culture that takes place, but it is a critical attitude towards one’s brothers, friends, traditions, and customs. It is necessary from an internal position to develop a particular culture and create a dynamic and relevant moral norm. Socrates did not interfere with a culture in which he had no experience of living, but he had a rich experience in learning about Athenian culture, and he could be critical of it. Socrates’ criticism was always reasoned and saturated; he did not appeal to vague concepts. It also matters because some vital comments have no argumentation but appeal to God, another tradition, and sensations. Considering the method of Socrates, his criticism, like the search for truth, would presuppose a dialogue, a solution to the issue; that is, it would not have the status of an unshakable statement.
Freedom of speech is an unresolved issue that still causes a lot of discussions, and people often try to find the boundaries of freedom of speech. There are indeed taboo topics that cause psychological damage to some people, and in this position, people can draw boundaries for free speech in many ways. Such people are often afraid that the champions of free speech are advocating impunity and permissiveness. It is important to find a balance and allow speaking out for many people who know how to argue their position in a difficult issue. You need to be able to understand other people (who create culture) and their personal experiences. From the standpoint of traditional ethical relativism, there are no uniquely right and wrong cultures. However, ethical relativism should not become moral “nihilism, which believes that morality does not exist as a concept” (Bajrami & Demiri, 2019) or moral absolutism. When using ethical arguments and appeals to relativism or some absolute truths of good and evil, people must bear this in mind.
Various examples of criticism of ethical and cultural norms show it is essential to note that many have a lack of balance in moral relativism. In the case of ethnocentrism, its historical heyday comes at a time of racism, impatience with other cultures, religions, and arrogant praise of European culture. Socratic criticism of the native culture is a philosophical understanding according to the method that Socrates invented. On the example of Socrates, it is noticeable how important it is to criticize with an argument without appealing to feelings, sensations, religion. The issue of freedom of speech confronts people with the paradox of freedom of speech itself.
Reference
Bajrami, D., & Demiri, B. (2019). Ethical relativism and morality. ILIRIA International Review, 9(1), 221-230.