Final answer:
Normative Ethical Relativism is the belief that moral standards vary across cultures and are not universally applicable. Critics argue that some moral principles may be nearly universal, as seen with the widespread condemnation of actions like female infanticide. Alternative ethical theories have been proposed through the use of reason and the search for universal principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
Normative Ethical Relativism posits that moral principles and values are not universal but vary from one society to another. It challenges the existence of absolute moral standards that apply to all cultures at all times. According to this theory, what is morally right or wrong depends on the norms and views of a particular culture, and these morals cannot be judged against a universal standard. John Ladd from Brown University and Thane Doss from CUNY, Hunter, have both explored this concept, though their approaches may differ.
However, criticisms of Normative Ethical Relativism highlight its shortcomings, especially when it comes to the criticism and reform of immoral practices within different societies. Examples such as female infanticide and genital mutilation are condemned across various cultures, indicating that some ethical principles might be more universal than Normative Ethical Relativism allows. Furthermore, despite cultural differences, many societies agree upon certain core ethical principles, such as the wrongness of unjustified killing.
Alternatives to Normative Ethical Relativism have been sought in the domain of reason, with philosophers like Plato seeking to discover universal principles of ethicsthrough logic and rationality. On the other side, descriptive ethical relativism, which is a well-supported scientific theory, simply documents differences in moral codes across cultures without making normative judgments.