Moral and Ethical Relativism vs. Absolutism
I wrote this essay for my Political Philosophy class last year and I liked it and thought that it was an interesting topic so take a look and see what you think.
As we take a look at different philosophers takes on the debate between relativism and absolutism, Stace’s essay stands out as the most intuitive explanation of both sides. It seems that the only arguments posed supporting ethical relativism are weak and those supporting absolutism are rather strong. For this reason, we should view the world in an absolutist way.
The first argument for ethical relativism is the fact that we are in an advanced society yet no truths have been found yet that everyone accepts as universal and applicable to all people (Stace 186). Relativists then say that because these truths have not been found or perfected, then a universal code must not exist. I agree with Stace when he says that “this argument, taken by itself, is very weak” (186). There are many examples of things that it once appeared did not exist but were later found and are now widely accepted as complete truth. I think the clearest example of this is in mathematics and the specific case of calculus. Before Newton, calculus was never used because no one had thought up how to do it. He wanted a way to study constantly changing values and the way that water flowed but there was no way to do this with the mathematics that existed at the time. Through studies he found out that the form of mathematics called calculus was the solution to his problems. Today, calculus is used everywhere and applied to real world situations and is accepted by everyone as the way to figure out certain types of problems. This same logic can be applied to absolutism. Just because no one has found the universal set of standards yet does not mean that it does not exist. Universal truths could be realized in a few years from now or in thousands of years but there is no legitimate reason to doubt their existence solely based on the fact that they have yet to be discovered.
Another argument supporting relativism that Stace brings up in his essay is that relativism explains the current state of affairs across the globe. As of right now there is obviously no moral standard all nations will accept and the relativist will say that this is because all ethical truths are relative and that is just relativism working its course in the world (188). The relativist will say that we do not know “upon what foundation an absolute morality could rest, or from what source a universally binding moral code could derive its authority” (188). Again the relativists have come up with a point with no merit. It can be disproved with the same counter-argument used in the last paragraph: just because the universal truths have not yet been found and applied does not mean that they do not exist. It is very counterintuitive to base an argument on a lack of knowledge yet the two main points supporting relativism use this tactic. Another reason not to accept this relativist claim, as I will explain more in the next paragraph, is that people do seem to be moving toward a universal set of values across the world as time goes on.
Stace notes the fact that people tend to think of humans as having progressed over time in terms of the ethical treatment of others (189-190). In the small amount of time that humans have been on the globe compared to other organisms, we have managed to form advanced systems of government and increasingly complex social structures. Early humans did not have much of a set of morals but as time progressed we began to create more organized tribes with rules and values. It is obvious to us now that our morals now outweigh the morals of the time when humans first appeared on the earth. If one is a relativist, there would be no improvement in morality over time because no one set of values is better than another. Surely no one[1] would doubt that not killing off millions of Jews is better than doing it after looking at the events of the Holocaust in hindsight. More countries are beginning to treat citizens with respect due to the increasing faith that there are basic human rights. Genocide is now considered terrible by almost every single culture now and it is these types of improvements that show that there is some sort of a universal set of values to work towards. To be a relativist, one would have to bite this bullet and admit that these atrocities are okay because it was just something happening at the time.
By the same token, people also compare current cultures based on the set of morals and beliefs that they have and use these facts to make judgments about the moral weight of the country (189). Most people in the world would consider the United States as being a better country, morally, than some places in third world countries where killing and stealing are not necessarily frowned upon. The reason for this view is because people are moving toward a common thread of moral values in the world. If not there would be no basis for making these comparisons. Without these common values, whether consciously recognized or not, the UN would never have made a Declaration of Human Rights.One argument that would definitely be hard for a relativist to swallow is that relativism essentially destroys all moral value (189). Humans have always formed different social groups but where should the line be drawn in terms of where the boundaries of different moral values are drawn. One could draw the boundary around a country, a state, a county, a tribe, a family, and all the way down to a single person. How can a true relativist say that all countries are equal in their moral weight but then once inside that boundary, look down on people that are doing things that are, in that area, considered wrong? (190). If those people are subscribing to a different country’s moral values then, in the relativists mind, they should have the right to do so without being judged. There is no truly logical way to draw boundaries of morality because it will encompass different types of people unless that boundary is the individual. If no one moral standard is better than the other in relativity, than there are no morals. This takes away the ability to look down upon anyone; this is the point where morality self destructs for the relativist.
The final argument against relativism appeals to basic human emotions[2]. In order to be a relativist, one must bite the bullet on a lot of different topics. The fact that most humans have some emotion when it comes to thoughts of genocide, molestation, etc, must mean that they think that what they believe is right and the places that condone those actions are wrong. However, this goes against true relativist thinking. If one system is not better than any other, there is no reason to feel bad about those affected people. If one society finds it right to kill with absolutely no motive, that has to be okay with relativists because it is just a different way of doing things and not only should it be okay, in that place it is right. This, I think, most relativists will have a hard time coping with because humans tend to be very in touch with their emotions and they have a tendency to believe that their values are the right values. Relativists must not allow themselves to do this if they are to stick to their beliefs.
On top of the weak relativist arguments, I argue that the fact that a majority of people have emotions and gut feelings that do not allow them to condone certain actions helps to disprove ethical relativism. I believe that this is because humans have progressed over time and that there is a universal set of values that is starting to become a reality. Although not all countries agree with it right now I think that the UN has the right idea in claiming a sort of code of ethics. They have the right idea even if what they have written down is not the universal code; people are beginning to see that one exists. The easiest way to see that there is some absolutist truth that all the arguments supporting relativism are based on a lack of knowledge whereas the absolutist arguments are based on facts.
_________________
[1] By no one I mean the vast majority of society. There are neo Nazis and other people who would support genocide. As a whole, though, societies have moved away from this action.
[2] While this argument is not found directly in Stace’s essay, it can be extrapolated from each different argument that he uses and it is a very point to bring up.
December 08 2007 01:16 pm | Absolutism and God and Relativism
Pranav on 03 Mar 2008 at 3:53 am #
Hey i really like this essay,
I have to write an essay on the following topic
“Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral judgements?”
Can you please help me with this ?