Cultural Relativism and Ethical Subjectivism - Essay Example

Inserts His/her Inserts Inserts Grade (08, 04, Cultural Relativism and Ethical ivism Introduction The search for morals or ethics, or more simply of right and wrong, is not new in this world. The debate about ethics and morals dates back to early Greek philosophers. Many ethical theories have been forwarded by different scholars and different underlying principles have been given that may guide people in ethical dilemma. Two such principles are very famous in today’s world and are known as cultural relativism and ethical or moral subjectivism. Cultural relativism is the belief about defining human actions on the basis of cultural values of an individual. Different cultures may have different ideas about right or wrong and no idea can be considered as absolute. Ethical or moral subjectivism can be defined as absence of definite or absolute moral right or wrong. It argues that individuals may have their own versions of moral values and no standard can be set by the society. In this essay the difference between the two will be highlighted. The possible implications of religion or absolute morality on the society will also be discussed. Comparison between Cultural Relativism and Ethical Subjectivism The idea that reality cannot be absolute and relative is an attempt by the society to accept or sanction the differences between the people. Cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism both argue that there cannot be one correct solution to all problems and different people may perform differently in similar situations and they can still be right (All About Philosophy, 2011). Beliefs or attitudes of people are different and so they act differently in similar situations, and society cannot set a standard about what is right or wrong. An ethical subjectivist will not believe in accepting absolute moral standards simply because of the fact that absolute moral standards cannot be known objectively. The absence of surety in the context of morality is the reason why subjectivism is supported by an ethical subjectivist. The idea is to allow an individual to think or act according to his belief simply because the ‘true reality’ is not known. Everyone is therefore entitled to believe in his or her version on morality. Cultural relativism also vouches for differences among people on the account of differences between cultural values. Culture can be regarded as one of the strongest influence of a person because it shapes an individual’s personality and thought patterns from childhood. This allows a cultural relativist to argue that different culture may have different interpretations of truth and therefore differences between cultures should be accounted for without arguing for a perfect realist view of truth. The similarity between these two viewpoints is that they both argue in favor of societal and individual versions of moral truths. Subjectivity and relativism is preached because we can only be relatively sure about anything. Individuals are allowed to behave differently on account of their culture or personal opinions because of this absence of surety when it comes to moral reality. The main criticism on both of these theories is that the society will be in a chaos if every person in the society starts to practice his or her own version of morality (Rosaldo, Renato. 2011). Any idea about right or wrong cannot be left to individual (ethical subjectivism) or a group of individuals (cultural relativism) simply because of the lack of rational thought that is embedded in all societies. This criticism of subjectivity and relativism springs from the idea that people cannot be trusted for they may, and do, err in their social judgments and society cannot be exposed to the madness of one or many. The reply to this argument by ethical subjectivist will base in a belief that human beings have an inherent sense of morality. Naturally we are embedded with certain kind of moral righteousness and therefore we, human beings, have a capacity to do what is right (Kiekeben, F. 2000). This belief in human beings is the rationale given for ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. Different cultures are also a combination of people and their actions will also be morally desirable because human beings in general have a sense of morality. This is the main argument given in favor of ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. The differences between cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism are also important to understand. Ethical subjectivism calls for subjectivity in solutions of ethical dilemma. This subjectivism can be both of a relative or an absolutist form but on the other hand cultural relativism as the name suggest can only be relative (Brandt, Richard. 1959). An ethical subjectivist is free to follow any solution of the ethical dilemma he or she thinks is right and this can be an absolute ethical solution or can be of a relative nature. Ethical subjectivism views moral decisions from an individual perspective and cultural relativism accounts for the cultural influences of a person. The idea of truth being different for different cultures outlines cultural relativism but not an individual, rather a group of individual. On the other hand ethical subjectivity is a belief or idea of a person about what is right and what is not. Implications of Religious Moral Absolutism The idea that religion or God has the authority to decide what is moral and what is not is religious moral absolutism. The belief, that an action is justified or right because it comes from God had wide spread influence on human history. Religious crusades and persecution of the ‘sinful’ was all done under the flag of religious absolutism. The implications of such a belief can be disastrous for the society because God’s word is vague to say the least. It is mostly interpreted by clergy and is most of the times completely bias. This biasness in interpretation of the message of God causes problems for the society. A particular faction of society becomes the center of attention, usually the clergy itself, and the rights rest of the society are violated. The ideas of this clergy and not of God are propagated under the name of religion. Religion can also not be allowed to dictate private and public life of the residents of a society because religion is not objective in nature. Religion is a belief and its basis is on stories and events that are not verifiable by history. This belief is also not based upon any evident fact so such a belief cannot be imposed on the people. There cannot be a definition of religion or God’s word because we cannot view religion with the lens of objectivity. Certainty is lacking and therefore such absolutist ideals cannot be imposed on the society simply by saying that it is God’s word. The propagation of moral absolutism is done in society through religious schools like Christian schools of America (Pierce, et.al. 1981). The preaching of a standard that is right no matter what because it is from God motivates people to deprive other’s of their right. Such standards cannot be established in the society because it will kill individual creativity. The reason for this argument is that religion gives a complete code of life and if it is kept as standard then human liberty to do what he or she desires will be in jeopardy. Religion not only has opinions about some issues rather it talks about all aspects of life and any attempt to impose God’s word would mean implementation of a religious polity and that is unacceptable. Although religious moral absolutism cannot be advocated still cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism can also decrease the utility of the members of the society. Morality cannot be decided by everyone in his world but religion can also not decide about right or wrong so what is the solution then? The solution lies within the realms of utilitarianism. Social utility should be aimed and maximum good of the greatest number should be set as a standard. After that absolutism, relativism or subjectivism can all be sanctioned, in parts, after evaluating their impact on the social utility. Conclusion Cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism allows individuals and culture to dictate morality according to their own beliefs. Both are similar in some respects but there are some differences as well. The impact of religious moral absolutism will be disastrous because religion is a tool that is used to exploit the society. On evaluating ethical theories utilitarianism should be kept in mind and the social utility of the people should be looked before deciding what is good and what is not. Works Cited Page Brandt, Richard. Ethical Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1959. Print Cultural Relativism: All Truth Is Local, All About Philosophy, 2011. Web. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cultural-relativism.htm Kiekeben, Franz. What Is Ethical Subjectivism? 2000. Web. http://www.kiekeben.com/ethics1.html Pierce, et.al. Education: A Case for Moral Absolutes, Time Magazine, 1981. Web. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922569,00.html Rosaldo, Renato. Of Headhunters and Soldiers: Separating Cultural and Ethical Relativism, Santa Clara University, 2011. Web. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v11n1/relativism.html Read More