The question is Moral or Ethical Relativism. Does an objective morality really exist? Whenever we argue for or against certain moral positions, do we simply presuppose that objective morality exists and neglect the possibility that it may not?
Take for example the question of abortion, which I know we have not discussed in-depth. We can make a sound argument for it, and a sound argument against it. Regardless of how well we argue, in the end we seem to reach a stalemate. Although we may feel strongly one way and may delineate all of our premises and conclusions, we never seem to reach an objective conclusion, only a conclusion that abides by our original premise or presupposition.
Applying different ethical theories in different situations only strengthens the argument. If you use a consequential argument in one case, and a deontological argument in another case, then you switch the premise, meaning that no one "truth" persists.
In the end, Americans may disagree with the ethics of another culture, but can there ever be a strictly logical argument, devoid of sentiment, that attains an objective morality?
(Submitted by Brendan Berger)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that there is no such thing as morals or ethics that are completely objective. For example, there are some philosophers out there that believe achieving the most good for all is what defines "right" (sorry, the name of that particular train of thought escapes me at the moment). However, keeping this in mind, we have to realize that this particular philosopher decided first and foremost that he believed achieving the most good for the most amount of people is the most proper way of defining proper action. This in and of itself is the mark that he has taken a stance on this subject. Granted, followers of this belief could possibly stay true to this definition word for word, thus creating a semi-objective moral/ethical standard. However, this still seems slightly hypocritical to me, saying that you can objectively follow a subjective set of rules.
ReplyDeleteIn short, there is no such thing as an objective moral/ethical standard, but one can objectively follow the standards, even to a fault.
Similar to Kant, I believe there are universal duties and goods that can be considered to be moral in every case. Among these include: do not kill, do not steal, etc. However, I believe that these goods are not universal because they are accepted by many cultures; rather, they are universal because they are essential for human survival - that is why they are incorporated into different cultures. If a culture deemed that killing is moral, I am pretty sure that that culture will not survive long. Because these ideas are universal, I believe that these morals and ethics can be considered objective, because everyone is expected to follow them.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, for lesser goods that may not need to be followed, but "should" be followed, I believe there are no objective morals within this subcategory. While it might be good to be generous in one culture, this might not be true in another. Similarly, while one culture might view pride as a strength, another might view it as vanity and as a pitfall. In these cases, there is no object moral view.
Furthermore, if we accept the prospects of moral relativism, there will be no moral progress. We cannot become more moral individuals because each moral standard would be different. As this is so, there must be universal moral standard that is objective that everyone should follow because it is there duty. While there are no objective moral and ethical standards for more ambiguous morals, universal duties and goods are objective truths.
~Tully Cheng
The fact that there are different moral codes in different cultures attest to the fact that there is no moral objective truth. Many philosophers such as Kant and Bentham create their own conceptions of objective moral codes of conduct, but both theories have flaws. For example, one of the most indusputable perfect duties as defined by Kant is the duty to not kill. In times of war, or in a more extreme case, for the purposes of self-defense, killing another person is usually sanctioned. Soldiers are even honored in most all societies for bravery on the battlefied.
ReplyDeleteBentham justifies all actions that maximize happiness, but such a standard would lead to world such as the world in the novel Brave New World. Also, people can never be true objective judges of what action will lead to the best possible outcome for everyone.
That being said, there are many problems with moral relativism as well. Three prominent problems that I see are the justification of horrendous moral codes under moral relativism, the lack of moral progress under moral relativism, and the problems of the practical application of moral relativism.
If we cannot criticize the moral codes of other societies, we cannot criticize the moral codes of Nazi Germany. Clearly, what Nazi Germany did was wrong, but moral relativism would allow the killing of Jews to be allowed and even commended. Also, ammoralists and immoralists can create problems for moral relativism.
Many societies have had moral progess over the years. 200 years ago, it was moral and right to defend your honor via a duel in the United States. Today, such actioms are considered barbarous.
Finally, there is the problem with the practical application of moral relativism. For example, in India there are different laws for people of different religions. Hindus are only allowed to marry one person while Muslim males can marry up to four wives. Unfortunately, there have been many instances of Hindus converting to Islam simply to marry more than 1 wife. People will simply convert from one culture to another culture so that they can be deemed moral
I agree with the other three posters. Objective morality cannot exist because there are so many different cultures with different moral codes. I think, as sentient beings, we understand this, which is why moral relativism exists. Most ethical situations stretch far beyond a simple "right" or "wrong" conclusion. Since the blog question brings up abortion, let's use abortion as an example. If objective morality existed, "do not kill" would certainly be among those "universal duties and goods" that Tully mentioned, which would essentially negate the question of abortion. It is our objective moral duty to not kill, and aborting would be killing, so that would be "wrong." The reason such a question exists, however, is clear from the current debate that surrounds it. An issue like abortion brings with it a host of other issues, the first and foremost being how we define a life. What is a sentient being, what constitutes life? From there, we then have to decide what killing actually is, whether abortion constitutes as killing, etc. The controversy around abortion exists simply because we cannot suppose objective morality--most issues are far more complicated than that.
ReplyDeleteBut, like Ankit said, moral relativism is not without its flaws. Moral relativism depends on the situation; different situations call for a different set of morals. We don't even have to venture out into different cultures. Even within our own culture, none of our morals are ever set in stone. Different situations will set the context for how we judge an ethical decision. For example, the intent to do harm can be just as bad as physically doing harm. We can judge someone's failed attempt at murder or rape even if the act did not technically happen.
I think the only true objective morality that exists is that no one should wrong any other person. Since we are all born with a conscience, we all instinctively know when something is morally wrong, even if we cannot explain it. Different cultures will shape our perceptions of wrong, but the fact that unethicalness exists is incontrovertible.
-Crystal
Crystal makes a valid point in arguing ethics and morality. Different cultures SHAPE moral beliefs; however,they do not contain a set of moral rights that are definite. Although their are principles that we should live by, such as do not harm others,there are always situations in which this claim can be overturned. As it is stated in the defending of the theory of meta ethical moral principles, we can know universal moral principles and there are no universal moral principles. In other words, we know that their are principles we must follow however there is no set of principles that are universal to every culture and population. Furthermore, to re state what most have said but to emphasize my point, although do not kill is a principle most would assume is something needed to be followed in the debate of abortion, those who can not care for the baby properly should have the option to abort without feeling as if they are going against a typical moral principle of do not kill.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with previous posters. The fact that each culture has a distinct set of "objective" moral/ethical principles goes to show that a comprehensive list of reconcilable moral principles will never come to fruition. It has been proposed that universal principles exist (also known as the common morality) which include standards of action such as "do not kill", "do not cause pain or suffering to others", "tell the truth", etc., but these principles have varying degrees of importance (if none at all) across cultures. How could you possibly reconcile a cannibalistic culture with a culture that says ending another's life is wrong? Would it even be worth the time to try and make one side accomodate the other? It would therefore seem that objective Ethics and morality only exist in their respective cultures.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are some arguments against this line of thinking. The first being that all cultures are not distinctly seperated, and there is no clear cut way of distinguishing where one set of culturally relevant set of morals ends and another begins. This falls in line with the other counterargument that some cultures do in fact share parts of a common morality. While these claims are sound, they still do not offer a universal objective morality that can be accepted worldwide and across cultures. Sure, some sets of morality share principles, but there will never be an absolute list and therefore moral/ethical relativism will continue to exist on both an empirical and metaethical level.
Although I do agree with the above posts about the majority of ethics being non-objective. We can argue that there is one possibility for a universal ethical code: the avoidance of suffering. The subjectivity comes in to play when determining how one is to avoid suffering.
ReplyDeleteIt is always in the interest of an individual (generally) to prevent suffering to themselves. However, the way this is done is different from culture to culture and person to person. As we mentioned in class, some cultures believe killing their parents prevents them from suffering. In America, however, that is considered to be inethical because to kill them is to have them suffer.
Although there is a general agreement that ethics cannot possibly universal I believe it needs to be considered. The basis for this lies in the theory of consequentialism. People do things in order to bring themselves the best consequences. As selfish as this sounds it is the reality. Therefore there is a general ethical code to bring about the most positive and least negative results for oneself.
It is as ethics begin to narrow to specific situations that the universality of ethics decreases. Cultures handle different situations based on what they believe to be right. Although from situation to situation ethics is relative, the beginning motives behind any decision is universal. This can bee seen as very general, but I still believe that it is a fair argument for some degree of universal ethics.
While I agree with varying aspects of the posts above, there is key element missing. While the idea of moral/ethical relativism is nice on the outside, it simply contains a logical flaw in the argument that cannot be overcome and therefore will force us to simply abandon the theory. In order for the theory of ethical/moral relativism to work, we must understand there to be no absolute truths. However, this statement is a contradiction within itself. If you are to say that there are no absolute truths, then you have just created one absolute truth. Namely, that there are no absolute truths. This crucial flaw rules out ethical/moral relativism itself as a valid moral theory. Too add, I think that this also illustrates the point that there are absolute objective truths, whether you ascribe to moral relativism or not, they do exist.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, with or without this flaw, I think many people could come to understand that ethical/moral relativism could never be a solid theory in other ways. For one, there are example of genocide. According to ethical/moral relativism, if a culture or the mainstream of a culture at a time, for example Extremist Hutus in Rwanda or Nazis in WWII Germany, accepted genocide as ethical then we would have no grounds to argue that it is not. This seems extremely contradictory to our moral intuition, how could genocide ever possibly be right? I know that some might argue, how could I say that I have the right to judge another culture? But I would just employ their sense of morality, can you really say that you have no problem with genocide because it is another's culture? What if you were living in that culture and subject to genocide? Does your ability to call upon your morality then change? I hardly think so. Either way, I think it is easy to make the conclusion that ethical/moral relativism is not a coherent ethical theory that should be implemented.
Finally, in regards to the posted question, it may seem as if no moral/ethical truths exist because you can always find another ethical argument that would turn it around to prove that your truth is not true. I think the problem that is arising here is a matter of distinguishing a difference between an ethical theory and an objective universal truth. An objective universal truth will remain an objective universal truth whether it appears in the conclusion or premises of an argument. I think this is an important point to make because the existence of an objective ethical truth does not rule out the possibility of any of the ethical theories we have discussed, except for moral relativism. Furthermore, I would argue that the rest of the ethical theories we have discussed depend on the existence of objective ethical truths in order to function as real enactable moral theories. If they did not, how would we ever be able to judge one action we considered good over another? For instance, utilitarianism is based upon the sole ethical theory that what is right/good is what helps/promotes good/doesn't harm the greatest number of people. As a result, I would have to argue that since moral/ethical relativism is not a logical theory, additionally, even in ethical relativism an objective truth exists and the remaining ethical theories function on the assumption that at least one objective ethical truth exists, then at least one objective ethical truth must exist.
Ethical Relativist make a sound argument, stating that because of each culture’s personal interpretations of societal norms there will be no absolute moral principles, because interpretation is individualistic. There are certain “truths” within each culture which shape the fundamental ethos of a culture. However, although interpretation and understanding is individual, there are certain principles that must be adapted (within all cultures) in order for survival and continual development.
ReplyDeleteBy examining the function of all organisms one can possibly find a commonality, an objective morality in which all strive towards. The function of mankind is to develop a balance between one’s reason and inclinations in order to achieve absolute happiness. As Aristotle believed, every action and purpose may be said to aim at some good. The value of this ultimate good is its ability to be fulfilling in and of itself. Happiness is a good not desired for the satisfaction of leading to further stages in life, hence being the “highest good”. If life was built into a hierarchy all power would be centralized in the one emotion of happiness. Therefore the objective morality for all is possibly simply the will to obtain absolute happiness and a form of personal fulfillment. When this stage is reached the journey of life ceases, there is no more seeking, or even change it seems. One has reaches a state of utter permanence. The function of happiness is to be complete. Happiness is something final and self-sufficient, in the end of all action, but sometimes when the end of a journey is reached and all stops, no change is needed.
However, in order to obtain a life of happiness one must live in accordance to the good will and deserve the life of happiness. An “upright life” of happiness is earned through the merit of one’s will evaluated by one’s commitment to principles such as “Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal…” The abidance to these principles results in a sense of security and trust in a culture, necessities to secure its longevity.
Brendan and I actually discussed this topic in class before posting this on the blog since we both had extremely similar feelings toward this question. It first arose as we sat in class listening to the back and forth counter arguments between classmates that seemed like could go on forever with no concrete conclusions. Each classmate had their own beliefs and could support it with examples and facts, but could not convince the other classmate to switch to their stance or prove that their beliefs were better or correct. This is why we find ethics so intriguing; there is no right or wrong and everyone is free to feel and support whatever stance they desire on any ethical issue using any ethical theory.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, in regards to the question of moral or ethical relativism described above by Brendan, I do not believe an objective morality really exists. To say that morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right" and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures. Whenever we argue for or against certain moral positions I think many of us simply presuppose that objective morality exists and neglect the possibility that it may not. The examples that Brendan uses are just a few of the numerous examples that could have been used. In each example, we can make a sound argument for it, and a sound argument against it and as Brendan noted; Regardless of how well we argue, in the end we seem to reach a stalemate. Although we may feel strongly one way and may delineate all of our premises and conclusions, we never seem to reach an objective conclusion, only a conclusion that abides by our original premise or presupposition. Applying different ethical theories in different situations only strengthens the argument. If you use a consequential argument in one case, and a deontological argument in another case, then you switch the premise, meaning that no one "truth" persists. Perhaps the best argument negating Objective Morality, is that morality in itself is composed of subjective ideals. You can't be objective with something that is subjective. Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that an objective morality really exists.
-KEENAN