Ethical Relativism - Assignment Example

Assignment 2: Ethical Relativism 2. Write a careful discussion of Ethical Relativism. Take very careful account of the distinctions made in the lectures concerning this idea. Can ethical relativism be “salvaged”? Introduction: This paper addresses the theory of ‘Ethical Relativism’ and relevant issues. The concept of ethical relativism signifies that the notions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ tend to vary from person to person, and society to society. Right and wrong are based on social norms. Lafollette (146) also defines ethical relativism by supporting the argument that “Ethical principles or judgments are relative to the individual or culture”. He further contemplates that “There are ways in which ethical principles behavior vary legitimately from culture to culture and individual to individual”. In other words, ethical relativism implies that our moral values are not absolute as they keep on changing over time. This, to some extent, brings in a sort of moral chaos due to the disintegration of a uniform culture. Critics of ethical relativism often argue that ethics is subject to rational scrutiny and hence, moral values can be either correct or incorrect. But relativism is also very much attached to ethical values. Perhaps, what is best for us is to embrace both relativism and rationality while reasoning about the moral values of ethics. The theory of ethical relativism holds that our moral values have evolved and changed over time, and that we can reason about our moral values and others’ as well as universal moral principles. Concepts of ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’: While explaining the conceptualization of ethical relativism, philosophers tend to differ on describing the terms of ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’. Ethics is more about questioning the Self “What should I do?”, in other words, it is about how to live a ‘good’ life, what is the ‘meaning’ of life, what is ‘good’ for us. Morals, as Toulminian philosophy supports, is somewhat concerned about social rules and norms, the societal authoritarian notes telling us what to do or not do. Moral values are the responsibilities imposed on us by the society. These are the duties every individual ‘ought’ to do as members of the society. Moral rules are based on public appraisals of behavior that direct people to engage in or refrain from certain kinds of self-regarding behavior or action. You may get praises or face criticism for such behavior according to the acceptance or denial of your social norms. In short, ethics is more of individual interests whereas morals is for everyone, as members of society. But these rules or moral values are not absolute prescriptions to be followed steadfastly. Instead, these are rules of thumb that are sensitive to particular situations (Lafollette 146). Therefore, even the moral principles are absolute, what they prescribe varies, depending on the relevant features of the case. Thus, relying on the concepts of ethics and morals, we can now talk of individual relativism as well as social or moral relativism. Individual relativism advocates the argument that what is right for one individual tends to differ from what is right for another. In a similar manner, moral relativism supports the view that there is a systematical distinction between what is right for one set of people and what is right for the other. Such variations are based on which group or set people are associated with. However, it is clear that in both kinds of relativism, it is the responsibility of the individual to follow the rightness or wrongness of moral principles as an individual self and also, as a member belonging to a particular group or set of people. Relativism dissected: In order to understand the theory of relativism more in depth, it would be easier for us to dissect the concept further and make a three-way distinction into - (a) descriptive relativism, (b) meta-ethical relativism and (c) normative relativism. A little more discussion on these three aspects would be sufficient to project a serious glance on the theory of relativism. Descriptive relativism: It claims that people’s moral beliefs differ from one group to another. That is why, there are differences across various cultures. Variations can occur among individuals within the same culture as well as among different cultures. In other words, different cultures have different moral values that distinguishes one from the other. This brings forth the realization of the absence of a uniform culture and hence, the possible presence of moral chaos. History has its established testimonials (for example, Civil Rights Movement) that “morality thrives on diversity; without it important moral advances would never have been achieved (LaFollette 148). A rationalistic observation can very well ask how similar or different the societies are from one another. More cultural differences may denote more conflicting situations and less similarities in circumstances that exist in different societies. Besides, variations in cultural values would also signify more contradictory sets of rights and wrongs, making the whole issue of morality all the more complicated. Meta-ethical relativism: It argues that moral values are relative to culture. Therefore, the meaning of notions such as ‘right’, ‘just’ and so on tends to differ systematically from culture to culture. Morality, to some extent, can be considered as a matter of cultural taste. A practice considered right for one society does not necessarily conform to the meaning of ‘rightness’ in another. This includes examples of cultural practices such as infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism and torture. Such notions can be confusing too as they tend to raise many questions. Is there any existence of universal moral principles, or is morality confined to different cultural perspectives only? Every culture values its own rights and wrongs. But what happens to an individual influenced by two different cultures? Does he have to accept two different sets of rights and wrongs? Or if not, then which cultural norms can he adapt? Normative or moral relativism: It views that what people should do is to conform to the local moral values they are associated with. Whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. However, there lies a disadvantage of ethical relativism that right and wrong are all relative. Can the practice of a culturally right action in a society actually be considered morally right for itself or another? Or maybe not. A good example of this is the practice of slavery. Some two hundred years ago, slavery was a morally acceptable practice in America. But today, it is not the case. In addition to these views, we can also mention a view called situational relativism which supports that what is right and wrong is relative to the situation. Moral rules are relative to situations as “no specific rules can handle all the situations we face” (LaFollette 146). While discussing social norms and practices, the complicated nature of ethical relativism may bring to light another ambiguity over the concept of society. Confusion draws more attention here over which society we mean - is it the society from which one came or the society where one stays? For instance, it is difficult for an individual to choose the society to abide by its moral values and practices especially when he or she was brought up in one and moved to another. The issue here is the individual’s compliance to one of these two societies. But how will he decide which one to follow? It becomes more puzzling when the individual tends to mix up the cultural values. Because, it can lead him to follow two sets of rights and wrongs that can be either similar or, as in most cases, completely different from each other. Advantages: One of the advantages of ethical relativism is that it introduces us to a wide variety of cultures as well as practices. Secondly, it supports ethical adaptation for people in the context of culture, knowledge and technology changes in society. Diversity is an important factor in the exercise of moral principles. However, this does not mean that all behavior contributing to moral goals is morally legitimate. But diversity is accepted to some extent, and preferred over uniformity or absoluteness in moralism. Lafollette advocates moral diversity stating that, “We should see divergence in moral ends not as an unavoidable evil, but as a factor contributing to human advance and moral excellence. We should not merely tolerate diversity, we should embrace it; we should seek exposure to views different from our own; we should encourage variety of thought and action. Otherwise we will stagnate; we will fail to achieve our human potential.” (LaFollette 147) The theory of ethical relativism reminds us of the fact that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our cultural values. Different societies pursue different sets of moral values. In order to answer and explain the diversification of ethical values, the theory blends relativism with rationalistic viewpoints that explores the reasons why one set of cultural values is different from another. Ethical relativism also challenges us to examine and evaluate our own reasons for sticking to our moral beliefs and values. In other words, ethics is very much a topic that we are in a position to reason about. “We should strive for a rational yet relativistic ethic which emphasizes the exercise of cultivated moral judgment rather than the rote application of extant moral values.” (LaFollette 146) Disadvantages: The main disadvantage of ethical relativism is its relativity aspect among truth, right and wrong that confirms the rightness or wrongness of one’s moral principles. But just because an action is accepted as morally right in a society does not give it the permission to apply it as a universal concept. Moreover, relativism does not support the existence of an absolute set of ethics. This means ethical relativism does not support the idea of an Absolute Ethics Giver or God. Besides, the theory would exclude religious systems based on absolute morals. But then, to repeat our previous statement, morals are absolute, variation occurs only in the way they prescribe over time. And this is where the importance of relativity comes in. Problems arise when ethics change over time and a set of contradictions arrive within its relativistic perspective. For instance, the issue of slavery was a morally acceptable norm in America two hundred years back. Now it is not. But what if it again gets moral acceptance two hundred years later from now? If so happens, it will leave a contradictory set of right and wrong regarding the same issue. Some more counter-effects: Ethical relativism, so far, has got its own share of support as well as criticism. The theory holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture. The same action can be morally right in one society but be condemned in another. But does that mean what a society disapproves of something is really sufficient enough to prove that it is wrong? The relativists slogan that we should rely on our cultural norms in order to identify what is right or wrong. Does that also mean that we should stick to our local moral rules no matter what they are? This is a rather critical statement as variations and contradictions can exist within the society. According to ethical relativists, there are no universal moral standards that can be universally applied to all people at all times. The only moral standards that can be judged within the perspective of ethical relativism are its own. If ethical relativism is to be implemented, there would not be any common framework available for resolving moral disputes or ethical matters among members of different societies. Ethicists strongly view that although moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices usually account for similarities rather than differences. Thus, we can repeat our earlier argument that moral principles are indeed absolute, only their application tend to vary from society to society. Existence of a universal element: Supporters of universal moral principles strongly back the argument that universal morality is based on the general features of a situation so that individuals in like circumstances should act similarly. In other words, what is right or wrong for one person must be right or wrong for any other person in similar circumstances. But can there be a universal factor of moral principles? Not completely, still it does exist. A simple example is ethical offenses such as killing and rape. Rules against such actions always follow a bottom line never to be crossed at any cost. Such ethics transcend all cultures. The lesson for us is that we should be able to evaluate our actions, both on moral grounds as well as within rationalistic perspectives. Because, moral principles are not meant for our own selfish interests, they are there to guide us in leading a true and good life. Morality is an essential feature of a society. In order to function well and rightfully, a society requires at least some amount of unanimity to consider what is right or wrong. Therefore, even if morality cannot be conceptualized as a universal phenomenon, it still carries out some serious contemplation that should not be ignored. Conclusion - Relativity merged with rationalism: A possible solution in the adoption of ethical relativism lies in the combination of relativity and rationalism. The study of ethics, in the perspective of modern philosophy, requires reasonability as well as traditional conception. It is agreed that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. For instance, certain practices such as dressing and eating habits depend on local customs and moral rules. Whereas practices like slavery or political repression may be rather governed by universal moral principles. Such practices are universally judged wrong despite many other differences existing among cultures. So when we can agree that some practices are relative, it does not necessarily mean all practices are relative. What we need is a rationalistic viewpoint that helps us determine the right or wrong of any action. This should also include respect for our traditional values. Ethical relativism without rationality only promotes social conformity, hence leaving no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Moreover, there can be different individual views on practices among the members of the same society as well. In such a case, what would be legitimate for us to hold on for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions? Should we just follow our age-old tradition or reason about our ethics? Or, is ethics only an inquiry into right and wrong through critical examination of the reasons underlying our moral practices and beliefs? What can the theory of ethical relativism with rationalistic perspective do to explain such issues? Perhaps, LaFollette has a simplistic yet substantial explanation to this, “Ethical theories are important not because they solve all moral dilemmas but because they help us notice salient features of moral problems and help us understand those problems in context. They help us see problems we had not seen, to understand problems we had not understood, and thereby empower us to make informed moral judgments, judgment we could not have made without an appreciation of moral theories.” (LaFollette 152) Reference: LaFollette, Hugh. “The Truth in Ethical Relativism”. Journal of Social Philosophy (1991): 146-54. Read More