Moral Theory of Relativism in the US - Essay Example

Moral Theory: Relativism In the United s the innocent kiss in the park by a young couple is looked uponas a cute display of endearment. Yet in India the practice is frowned on and can result in severe social sanctions. Prostitutes can openly display their wares and market their vocation in the Netherlands, but in the United States that same activity could result in a prison term. These cases are examples of a social group or culture making a moral judgment on behavior. Morality seems to shift like quicksand as we travel from our inner social circles to larger cultural groups and the interacting people of the world. It is often on a continuum that has no set boundaries and no well defined rules. Many people use this elusive quality of morality to justify even them most deviant behavior and overlook the gravest transgressions of right and wrong. However, each individual has a morality that is absolute. While we must accept that morality is absolute, it is also our responsibility to recognize that it is also absolute for other people and respect their right to alternative value systems. Examining our most fundamental cultural group, the family, we can readily identify inconsistencies in moral judgments. The dominant religion in the United States, Christianity, has a commandment that dictates 'Thou shalt not kill'. Most people, and certainly within a Christian family, hold that morality in high esteem. Yet, almost everyone has a basis on which they would violate that commandment and be able to justify their actions. Morality is necessarily based upon the social setting. As Dr. Stephen Sullivan, Professor of Philosophy at Edinboro University, states, "...there is more than one correct morality" and "no moral values correctly apply to everyone" (qtd. in Gillespie, 1). An unwanted intruder that was threatening their family could be killed and justified as self-defense. Some members of the family may have a moral objection to serving in the military while others would feel a duty to kill the enemy combatants. The morality of the commandment has taken on the meaning that each individual ascribes to it. The scenarios that killing would be allowed will vary with each individual within a family. When this is transcribed to larger cultural groups, morality becomes as individual and elusive as a snowflake in a snowstorm. That morality is individual places an even greater emphasis on its lack of, and importance of, relativism. Each individual has their own morality that does not waver. If an individual believes that abortion is wrong here and today, they will also believe that it is wrong in any other culture at any other time. Individual moral judgments are not modified to accommodate another person's differences or cultural surroundings. In this sense, morality is absolute, but only for the individual. It would be unethical to espouse a given stance on abortion to one person and then give a conflicting argument to another person for the convenience of agreement with that individual. The morality of the individual may evolve over time as the person learns and grows, but it should not shift continuously to make the person more likable or popular. We too often see this ethical weakness in politicians attempting to curry votes by pandering to public sentiment without any regards to their moral stand. Individuals have a duty to own up to their own moral absolutism. Recognizing that we each have a moral absolute and a duty to live by it also engenders the notion that we must accept that others also have their own moral code. The issue becomes the tolerance of other moral judgments that may differ from our own. In the world of globalization and diverse cultural communication it becomes even more imperative that we tolerate other moralities that may lie outside our own narrow acceptance. Morality is not an issue of 'we are right and they are wrong', but rather the ethical dilemma of understanding that 'we are right and they are right'. The extreme position on relativism would disallow anyone from being morally critical of any action as long as the behavior was culturally sanctioned (Cook, 185). You may have the ethical obligation to keep prostitution off your street, but you have no moral right to invade someone else's space to enforce your moral judgment on them. This is not excusing what may be perceived as deviant behavior, it is the acceptance that we are each entitled to, and have no alternative to, our individual moral views. When the issues become more threatening, such as war and rioting, society is called upon to make moral judgments. Obviously, a world in which anything goes at any time would lead to chaos and anarchy. If an individual believes war is wrong, they have a duty to protest and abstain themselves from military duty. Likewise, if a government feels that the best course of action is to invade our neighbors, the leadership can not expect or demand to drag everyone with it. Each individual is entitled to their own set of moral values. If rioters are destroying a community, it is the duty of the individuals to decide when the rioting runs so far afoul of community standards that it must be stopped. In most cases of morality such as abortion, displays of affection, and drugs cultural morality should only come to bear when the repercussions are so severe and direct that they demand some sort of action. According to Emmanual Kant, we must carefully and cautiously decide for ourselves what is a categorical imperative and when we have "sufficient reason" to reach the point of intervention (as cited in LaFollette, 236). Morality is absolute only at the point that it becomes imperative. We do not have to justify the morality of another person or culture to allow its existence or expression. In conclusion, individual morality is absolute. This absolute quality also carries with it the obligation that social and cultural groups have for the recognition of other moral standards. Only by believing in our own morality and not transposing that onto others can society discern right from wrong. The beheading of innocent people in time of war does not become more moral just because we understand the underlying motivations for the actions. Yet, cultural differences that bring about values that we perceive as deviant must necessarily be tolerated as they should be seen as absolutes just as our own morality is absolute. It is not possible to believe in everything, but it is possible to accept its existence as absolute, just as we do our own, until the repercussions are direct, personally threatening, and we have adequate justification for intervention. Works Cited Cook, John W. Morality and Cultural Differences. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Gillespie, Gary. "A Reply to Stephen Sullivan." Values Newsletter. 2006. Edinboro University. 25 June 2007 Read More