- Information
- AI Chat
Moral Relativism Essay
Philosophy
University of Bristol
Preview text
To what extent, if any, is moral relativism a plausible position? Moral Relativism dictates that the truth, or justification, of moral judgments is not absolute, but is relative to the practices of a particular group of people. That which is considered morally justified varies between individual cultures, religions, traditions and societal groups. At first glance, moral relativism appears to be a plausible position. Variations in behaviour within differing societal groups imply that morality is also likely to differ between these groups. This provides an element of toleration; an emphasis is placed on cultural difference rather than value. With no rational foundation for morality, no moral judgment can be considered absolute or universal. Moral relativism provides a simple method of determining what constitutes a morally right action. Advocates can derive a moral code by merely observing social norms. However, in practice, moral relativism is fundamentally flawed, and thus implausible. Certain practices are undeniably wrong. Slavery cannot be justified on any moral grounds, regardless of whether it is common practice within a particular societal group. A basic objective moral code is required to prevent such practices. In addition, moral relativism requires the toleration of intolerant cultures. No moral value can be given to the actions of such cultures; they can only be regarded as different. The relativist approach only works in conjunction with some basic underlying absolutist principles. These absolutes will prevent conflict over fundamental aspects of morality. At first glance, moral relativism appears both plausible and appealing. From an empirical approach, it is clear that behavioural codes differ substantially between cultures. What is considered right in one culture may be considered wrong in another. Given such variation, it would be unrealistic to propose a one-size-fits-all approach to morality. This is known as the Cultural Differences Argument. 1 Rachels applies this view to a real world scenario. In ancient Greece, the dead were disposed of by cremation. Conversely, in India, the Callatians would eat their dead. Each culture would consider the other’s methods of dead disposal as disgusting. Neither has a moral grounding to defend their own custom and so neither can claim moral objectivity. Each group’s moral code is relative to their own culture. 1 Rachels (1986) The Challenge of Cultural Relativism In modern society, a relativist approach is particularly appealing given its affiliation with toleration. In an increasingly multicultural world, one must be accepting of the differing practices of those around them. Toleration here does not mean an absence of disapproval, but rather abstaining from interfering with the actions of societal groups that are deemed morally wrong. Wong argues that a rational and well-informed group of people cannot be interfered with, without a rational justification for doing so. Consider the idea that one society maintains the moral judgment for freedom of speech whilst another society does not. The former society cannot justify interference with the latter. The former may give justifications that appeal to its own moral values but the more restrictive society has no logical reason to accept such justifications. Wong termed this as “the justification principle”. To assume that variations in behaviour will not lead to encroachment is supremely idealistic. Moral disagreements between cultures are inevitable. Wong acknowledges this and highlights the necessity for maintaining non-coercive relationships with those with whom we disagree. 2 He refers to this as “accommodation” and notes that it should extend to an active attempt to learn from others whilst compromising where necessary. His practical approach to relativism allows for differing cultures to live in tandem. It is plausible for each group to have their own independent system for morality. In theory, Wong’s approach is both consistent and desirable. It allows for complete societal integration between differing cultural groups. Societies would grow and change whilst maintaining their own distinctive moral code. However, it presupposes that all cultures are adaptable and willing to develop alongside one another. In practice, this is unachievable. Given that moral code is so engrained in tradition, to expect a compromise between all cultures would be quixotic. Here in lies the main flaw in moral relativism. It seems plausible but requires too much for it work. Every societal group would have to be, at least in some sense, morally relativist. If one group sustains the relativist approach, whilst another remains 2 Wong (1996) Pluralistic Relativism However, morality should be viewed as a social construct. By considering an individual’s position within a social environment, an absolute moral code can be devised. An individual has particular wants and desires. In an ideal world, he would be able to fully exercise these desires. However, in reality, the individual lives alongside many other individuals. By fully exercising his own desires, he will encroach on those of others. France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen gives a concise interpretation of this by stating “the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of society of the same rights”.4 For the French, it was intended as a grounding for the law, but it can also be used as a basis for a moral code. A morally right action is therefore one which does not harm or encroach on the rights of others. John Stuart Mill extends on this view by including the need to pursue acts that, not only avoid harming, but are also beneficial to the welfare of others. 5 Through reason, a moral belief system can be constructed for humanity as a whole. A basic moral code can be devised as an underlying guideline to constructing further moral rules. Given the existing variation in culture, it would not make sense to construct a complete moral code that all must abide by. Instead, a quasiabsolutist approach is more effective. Certain moral laws must be upheld without question: these include stealing, murder, forced labour etc. Assuming they comprise of rational well-informed individuals, cultures should then have freedom to determine a consensus on which rules of morality are appropriate to their particular practices and tradition. This is, for the most part, the current system in effect in the world today. The existing system provides an effective basis for morality. Each individual is entitled to a set of rights to prevent infringement on individual liberty. They are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out principles for human behaviour and is 4 5 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) Mill, J., (1859) On Liberty safeguarded by both national and international law. Whilst this is essentially an absolutist approach, it does allow for some variation respective to individual cultures. Ultimately, moral relativism is implausible in a real world context. It requires far too much for it to be an effective system for morality. Every culture would have to employ the relativist position. The existence of a single conflicting culture would undermine the entire system. To be tolerant of an intolerant culture would be, by definition, a paradox. In addition, by merely considering what can be justified under the relativist position, it becomes clear that it is neither appealing, nor practical. This does not mean that the entire concept should be dismissed entirely. Cultures vary significantly in their practices and a comprehensive objective code would not accommodate for these variations. This is where the existing system of morality enforcement is effective. Human rights ensure that liberty is maintained whilst allowing some variation between particular groups. References Mill, J., (1859) On Liberty
Moral Relativism Essay
Module: Philosophy
University: University of Bristol
This is a preview
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
