Are Some Societies Objectively Better?
What makes one society superior to another? In today’s polarized world, moral relativism suggests all cultures are equal—but is that truly the case when comparing drastically different nations?
This age-old ethical dilemma pits objective standards of “good” against cultural subjectivity. The founders of ethical philosophy debated whether universal moral truths exist or if morality shifts with each society’s values. Today’s moral relativists argue that judging one culture by another’s standards is inherently problematic.
Yet some obvious differences seem impossible to ignore. If we compare North Korea’s authoritarian regime with the United States’ democratic freedoms, can we truly say both societies represent equivalent quality of life? Universal human rights principles suggest otherwise—basic freedoms, economic opportunity, and personal safety create measurable differences in citizen wellbeing.
The challenge lies in separating cultural preferences from objective harm. While culinary traditions and social customs deserve respect, denying education to girls, persecuting minorities, or maintaining concentration camps crosses ethical lines that transcend relativism.
Perhaps the solution isn’t ranking societies on a single scale, but identifying non-negotiable human minimums. Freedom from torture, access to basic necessities, and autonomy in personal decisions represent baselines that shouldn’t be relative—they’re simply wrong to violate, regardless of cultural context.
The most constructive approach may be acknowledging cultural diversity while maintaining that causing suffering through oppression, poverty, or fear makes certain societies objectively worse for their citizens. We can respect different ways of life while still recognizing that some ways constrain human potential more than others.
What do you think? Are there objective ways to judge societies, or should we embrace full moral relativism? Share your thoughts below.
No Comments