The Myth of Moral Relativism - Essay Example

Moral relativism is believed to be a myth by Jonathan Dohelty. He argues that being a moral relativist is actually being a moral absolutist. Before going into that argument, the first thing that needs to be done is to understand the concept of moral relativism. Moral relativists believe that there are no fixed values or absolute basis for the rightness or wrongness of an action (Dolhenty). Values may vary from culture to culture and it may also be different from the perspective of each individual. This can be summarized into the statement: What may be true or just for one may not be true or just for another. Since our culture and traditions changes through time and varies from different perspectives, the concept of moral relativism may be, in part, true and can really happen. For example, Christians believe in monogamy but Muslims’ marriage and family tradition is polygamous. The Christians belief is based upon what they believe is true and that is the Christian concept of a monogamous relationship or marriage. Christians believe that this is the correct partner and relationship practice because they believe in the teachings from the Bible. Muslims, on the other hand, also has different literature and context about marriage and family. What may be right for the Muslims, like in the example above, contradicts the beliefs of the Christians. And in this part of moral relativism, I agree. What may be wrong for me may be right for some individual with a contrasting cultural background that what I have. Within a certain culture, there are differing opinions and thoughts, also, about believing in tradition and cultural values. An example of this is the belief in traditional medicine. Though we have a science of medicine, many still believe in the healing capabilities of traditional medicine. This does not indicate, in any way, that traditional medicine is not right or not good for us. What it shows is that the preference of people vary from individual to individual because they believe in something that works for them, or works according to their own pragmatic reasons. The concept of morality is closely related to the concept of one’s own faith and belief. Once and existing belief of a person is shaken, he may look into the other side or his own argument to find a solution to his problem and to bring back the stability of his belief. This indicates that human beings believe in something they want to believe in because it serves their purposes. Going back to the example above, one may encounter a disease in which he has tried several medical practitioners already and not curing his disease. Since he is used to believing in science and how it can create and replicate curing medicines effective for the people that it was tested upon, he looks into traditional medicine as a last resort because of the failure of science to cure his disease or to take away his pain. And when traditional medicine gives him the result that he needs and that he wants, then he switches sides and believes now in traditional medicine being better than science to cure diseases. It is in a human’s nature to be fickle-minded and strong-willed in terms of accepting a value or a norm or a morality. Because of this nature, man tends to find ways and solutions to his problems by believing in something that works for them and that gives them the results that they need. Human has that pragmatic nature to use and insist on holding on to something if it is effective for them according to their own terms. Moral relativism suggests that the values and morals of people depend on their own culture and perspective. This implies that one’s own opinion matters in their beliefs and that morals and values change because of the adaptation of man within his situation. The relativity of morality, then, depends on one’s own capability of adjusting himself to his situation making morality something that is not fixed or absolute. What could be moral now can be immoral at a later period of time because of the changes and movement in the society. Communities and societies may merge. Cultures may be in contact with each other. And when this happens, morality changes for the people within it. The values of a pure Chinese family differ from the values of a family with an American father and a Chinese mother. This indicates that merging of cultures and societies also impact morality, thus, making it relative. The practices of the people change once they have become united with a different culture than their own. This can be effectively seen in the different sects of Christianity where everyone believes in God but certain groups do not believe in the saints or in Mother Mary. Same thing with the Muslims, where there are groups, the conservative ones, who believe that women should be covered entirely from head to foot, protecting her purity and cleanliness, while other groups, the more modern ones, believe that it is not really necessary, but there should be certain times and situations wherein the women should wear a bandana over their head. Another good example is the way how the Spaniards and Portuguese used the traditional and ethnic traditions and practices of the native Filipinos as a base to propagate Christianity in the land. They merged Christianity with the native culture by coinciding Christian events with the festivals of the natives. This creates a unique Christian tradition within the Filipino culture, different from the Christianity that the colonists practiced but has the same basis of belief, God and the Bible. They replaced the natural gods of the natives with their own God and they replaced the gods and goddesses of nature with saints, naming them saints of travel, of marriage and such. Though the natives have their own The examples given clearly indicate that morality can vary over periods of time and over different societies and cultures. Merging of cultures, changes and movements in the society also trigger change in the morality of individuals. Being exposed to a situation and a tradition may also create new values and traditions. Merging of communities and traditions create new cultures and traditions, thus creating new beliefs, values and morality. In this, morality is clearly relative in its sense of change and being relative from one to culture to another. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism. Moral absolutism suggests that moral relativism cannot happen since moral relativists still make absolute statements and their corresponding actions do not match relativism (Dolhenty). For example, some feminist groups claim that morality is a personal choice in terms of abortion. A woman should not be seen as immoral when she commits the act since her reasons should be considered. They protect the choice of the women and they are relativist in this sense. However, this changes when they talk about rape and the treatment of women in the Taliban community. How can they make absolute statements that these acts are wrong when they believe that morality is a matter of personal choice in terms of abortion? With this, moral relativists become inconsistent with their own statements of morality. This shows that there cannot be moral relativists since an individual, group or culture still believes in a morality that should encompass and cover the behaviour of the entire world. If the feminists really believe that morality is a personal choice, then all their other statements about rape and treatment of women should be consistent with that. But it does not. This shows that there is no absolute relative morality since there is still an encompassing belief in an individual, group or society that is directly opposite of their personal choice stance. Moral relativists still admit that there are certain absolute values that should not change, like respect for each individual. Because of this encompassing belief that there should be respect in everyone’s thoughts, opinions and lives, the moral relativists fail to become relative. Since they teach respect for the various beliefs of the world, there is still an encompassing value or morality, and that is the respect of one’s own belief and choice of practice and life. Because of this encompassing morality, there is not really a true moral relativist because there is still an absolute truth that all people believe in. Another thing that makes moral relativists moral absolutists is the belief that laws are absolute and encompasses the entire culture it is set upon. For example, slavery has been a law in older times. One can buy a slave and one can own a slave because there is a law that permits it to. This act then becomes legal though immoral in the sense that you own the life of a person and treat him differently from a free human being. But because there is a law on it, it becomes a norm and it becomes something that cannot be questioned. This, then, indicates that the law becomes a justification for an act that might or might not be wrong. Something that is lawful is considered just. And because of this, people believe in it and people do not question it. There is no choice in that and there is no relativity in that. It, then, becomes absolute. And the only time that it becomes relative is when it is abolished as a law. Another example of a lawful justification for an action that is supposed to be considered as immoral or unjust is the law that African Americans and women cannot vote. There is no relativism in that since there is an absolute law considering it as a legal act. But come to think of it, voting is a personal choice so why won’t we allow African Americans and women to vote when they are supposed to be allowed their personal choices? Laws, then, indicate absolutism and not relativism. Moral relativism and moral absolutism may clash but, in fact, they go hand-in-hand in everyone. One may become a moral relativist in his belief that we should respect the cultures and traditions of other people even if we think in our own culture it is wrong. We have absolute values within our own culture, we have our own unchanging values and beliefs. We may understand and realize that things may be different in other cultures but it will always remain for us immoral and we will not do it. A good example of this is killing. For some, killing is okay if it is for the good of everyone like when you sentence a criminal to death. The law justifies it. But we still believe that killing is wrong for innocent lives. Killing then becomes relative and absolute, relative because we kill for different reasons and absolute because of the reasons that we kill. With all of this, I do not agree that moral relativism is a myth. It exists in every one of us although it is not absolute because all of us are still moral absolutists believing in the absolute fact that things vary from person to person depending on the cultural background that one has. It may be confusing but, yes, it is true (what an absolute answer to a relative issue). Reference Dolhenty, J. “The Myth of Moral Relativism.” Read More