This is the introduction of my paper Moral Relativism and Empathy :

What is right and what is wrong? Do right and wrong genuinely exist as objective absolutes, or are they concepts of subjective moral perspective? The search for truth amid subjectivity has long puzzled thinkers in the intricate maze of moral inquiry. Is there an unchanging right and wrong, or does morality fit with different perspectives? Moral relativists have pondered these questions across the ages, urging us to embrace the many viewpoints that shape our understanding. Because this hotly contested subject sparks our intellectual curiosity, let us venture into the complex web where different ethics create variations upon the human condition. Think about the wilderness where animals roam in search of food and survival. From the tiniest insect to the biggest predator, each one follows the basic rhythm of danger and need. Even the most aggressive animals, like territorial hippos, act not out of meanness but from a naturally high survival instinct (though they can be quite dangerous, even more so than crocodiles). Many people fear spiders, but they only bite when they feel truly threatened—they have gained a bad stereotypical reputation. Similarly, humanity’s moral landscape is shaped by situations and context, where individuals make choices influenced by their upbringing, environment, and natural tendencies. Many criminals have found themselves on the wrong side of the law, not by “inherent evil” but by circumstances beyond their control. Poverty, familial discord, or psychological trauma can push individuals toward choices
they might not otherwise make. Even those labeled as psychopaths may have been shaped by a complex interplay of genetics and upbringing, leading to a worldview that differs markedly from societal norms. While this is no excuse for their behavior,it underscores the subjective nature of moral judgment and the crucial role of empathy in understanding diverse perspectives.

Regarding morality, the roles ofhero and villain can become unclear under changing circumstances. A hero’s bravery might seem foolish to someone else, and unexpected outcomes can mar their sacrifices. Who has the right to judge in this confusing area of moral decisions? Maybe true heroism is not about being right but about showing empathy and understanding, where the
lines between right and wrong blur in the complex nature of being human. Understanding diverse perspectives is a moral duty and a powerful tool to foster empathy and connection, bridging the gaps between us. This paper explores how moral relativism and empathy are profoundly interconnected and how they can promote a more understanding society. I will explain why I do not believe in the golden rule and universal moral laws.

At the heart of our explorationlies cognitive empathy and understanding, which guide us along the
paths of moral relativism. Through cognitive empathy, we step into the complex world of another’s perspective, trying to understand their experiences. Yet, amidst the various forms of emotional empathy and affective perspective-taking, we encounter the challenges of moral ambiguity. This interconnectedness, I believe, is the key to a more empathetic and balanced society.

I will explore moral relativism more deeply by examining Harman’s perspective. This philosopher's insights challenge the notion of absolute moral truth and emphasize the role of inner reasoning within groups in shaping moral judgments.

I believe that we also can have moral obligations towards ourselves partly because we have second-order desires and volitions, meaning wanting to want things or not wanting to want things (e.g., not wanting to want to eat cake when we are on a diet and when this is an obligation towards oneself). We can use long-term thinking and strategy (Frankfurt, 1971). We often think and feel without even realizing that we are being influenced. While it does require a certain level of self-awareness, coming to this realization empowers us to shape our moral judgments. Amidst the currents of influence and indoctrination, the origins of moral conviction remain hidden in the
haze of unconscious bias and societal conditioning (Lukes, 1974). Harman did not consider this.

As we venture further into the labyrinth of moral relativism, inviting deeper exploration into human
understanding, the timeless specter of Nietzsche beckons, inviting us into a deeper exploration of human understanding. Here, the notion of absolute truth fades, supplanted by the will to power and the pursuit of self-actualization. I will examine further whether we have moral obligations towards ourselves and whether we can think of other beings as “evildoers” or not. I will also try to place Nietzsche’s philosophy in a modern context by explaining that people without a purpose might be more vulnerable to getting addicted to certain content on the internet, such as conspiracy theories. These individuals might seek another “bad guy” to blame their problems on in lieu of traditional religious constructs such as the Devil.

I will discuss the controversial philosophical artist De Sade, whose libertine philosophy challenges conventional notions of morality and ethics. In the shadow of De Sade’s provocative
writings, the boundaries of morality blur into obscurity, yielding to the enticing call of boundless desire. While this dark corridor might feel foreboding, we will delve into whether the unrestrained freedom proposed by De Sade carries inherent risks or consequences, such as the potential for addiction, over-dependence on this freedom, or the possibility of jeopardizing the well-being of others. Alternatively, could this unbounded state of existence offer a healthier alternative
to suppressing certain urges and desires? I will also discuss somepsychological/psychiatric concepts related to this paper's subjects, particularly concerning different types of empathy. These are intended as reference points, as I firmly believe that each individual surpasses any diagnostic label and strongly oppose perpetuating stigma.

As we journey onward, I will alsoexplore modern topics such as social media and media influence,
idealized images, and the woke movement, a social and political movement that emphasizes awareness of social and political issues that may impact our thought processes. Eventually, I will also discuss whether and how moral relativism could function on a larger scale within society. As we roam about these maze-like halls, I will also discuss addiction, a growing global issue exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Preston, 2022). Addiction, whether to substances, such as alcohol and drugs, or activities, such as social media, gambling, and video gaming, is a chronic condition characterized by compulsive behavior despite harmful consequences. Common features include an inability to stop, increased tolerance, intense focus, lack of control, personal problems, health issues, and negative impacts on relationships and careers, with withdrawal symptoms often occurring when trying to quit (Pokhrel et al., 2007). Addictions arise from exposure to substances and stimuli, vulnerability, and sometimes a lack of purpose. Some individuals are more susceptible due to brain chemistry and can even become addicted to certain emotions (LeDoux,2012). As we ponder morality, addiction can be seen as immoral toward oneself and can cause oppressive and harmful behavior toward others. Addictions can be a slow death that can block people’s empathy toward themselves and others, making them too dependent and leading to various problems (Kirk, 2021). Though there are cases where an addiction is not severe, and ultimately everyone makes their own choices, I would personally advise trying to prevent addiction whenever possible. While morality depends on context, losing balance due to addiction can lead to what many people would call immoral situations. Therefore, this topic will be discussed multiple times throughout this paper. Understanding these dynamics helps us explore the implications for morality in different contexts.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me