Anda di halaman 1dari 7

A CRITIQUE ON ETHICAL RELATIVISM

Maria Kathrina V. Silva

ABSTRACT

Ethical Relativism is the prescriptive view that (1) different groups of people ought to have different ethical standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong and (2) these different beliefs are true in their respective societies. This paper accepts (1) but rejects (2). It argues that (A) just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so, (B) this theory makes cross-cultural criticisms incoherent and (C) if ethical relativism were correct, then, there could be no such thing as moral improvement in cultures or a person's life because to have improvement, we must have a standard by which to judge the difference in moral values. The following sections of this paper intend to present the bases for the above-mentioned arguments.

A CRITIQUE ON ETHICAL RELATIVISM Maria Kathrina V. Silva

Ethical Relativism is the prescriptive view that (1) different groups of people ought to have different ethical standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong and (2) these different beliefs are true in their respective societies. This paper accepts (1) but rejects (2). It argues that (A) just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so, (B) this theory makes cross-cultural criticisms incoherent and (C) if ethical relativism were correct, then, there could be no such thing as moral improvement in cultures or a person's life because to have improvement, we must have a standard by which to judge the difference in moral values. The following sections of this paper intend to present the bases for the above-mentioned arguments. The first part of this paper intends to present the basic and core ideas of Ethical Relativism. The second part will be dedicated for the arguments against the subject and for the presentation of supporting bases and evidences that led to such. The last part will then present the conclusion of this paper.

I. What is ethical relativism? Ethical Relativism is the position that all points of view are equally valid and the individual determines what is true and relative for them. Relativism theorizes that it is not simply that different people believe different things to be true, but rather there are different truths for different people. The relativist also often confuses cultural (or sociological) relativism with ethical relativism, but it must be made clear that cultural relativism is a descriptive view while ethical relativism on-the-other hand is a prescriptive view. (E.g., cultural relativism describes the way people actually behave, while ethical relativism prescribes the way people ought to behave.) The ethical

relativist often argues that an absolute ethical standard has never been proved beyond doubt in the history of thought. Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. And as anthropologist Ruth Benedict said in her work Patterns of Culture, diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree:
We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46)

Ethical relativism holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards - standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own.

II. Arguments against Ethical Relativism (A) Just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. This is also called as the Ad Populum Objection. It is an objection to the relativists belief that ethics is established by what most people believes. An example

of this is the dominant belief in the 14th century that the earth is flat. Back then, most persons really thought that the earth was flat, but this belief nevertheless did not make the earth flat at that time. Another good example is Slavery. Two hundred years ago in America, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable. But now it is not. James Rachels, in his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy said that, "we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own" (p. 25). Let us consider, for example, the prevailing moral beliefs about the propriety of persecuting Jews in Nazi Germany. Is it really not right to say that these beliefs were false? This theory does not only say that one cannot, but that the very idea is unintelligible. If moral truth is culturally relative, then persecuting Jews in Nazi Germany will then be morally permissible. Rachels thinks that this is absurd and one of the main reasons why many regard the Nazi regime as evil: it is because they believed and acted on moral beliefs that were patently false. (B) This theory makes cross-cultural criticisms incoherent. I think that not just because a persons belief from a certain culture, differs from another persons belief from another culture, makes any one of them wrong, and the other right. For example,
I am in Filipino culture and I am looking at the American culture. They say Abortion is morally unobjectionable. I say it isn't.

But if an act is only wrong in virtue of being banned by the culture a person belongs to, I cannot say from outside that culture whether the act is right or wrong.

I can say 'it is wrong (or right) in my culture' and I can say 'it is right (or wrong) in your culture.

But I cannot say it is absolutely right (or absolutely wrong) independently of any culture.

(C) If ethical relativism were correct, there could be no such thing as moral improvement or purpose in cultures or a person's life. This is also called as the Moral Progress Objection. To have improvement, we must have a standard by which to judge the difference in moral values. But because for the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards - standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times, it is therefore impossible to have moral progress or improvement in the society.

III. Conclusion To conclude, the point of this paper has been to argue that the second premise of Ethical Relativism (2) is actually objectionable. In arguing this, Objection (A), (B), and (C) had been used. Real examples have been presented to support the abovementioned Objections. If the second premise is correct, there unfortunately can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. Philosophers also assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, it then follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms will be therefore considered as an immoral act. Such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. While the moral practices of societies may indeed differ, we must still not overlook the fact that the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices often do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a

certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on its underlying moral principle which is the duty to care for parents. We may therefore say that societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but actually agree on the principles. Lastly, we must never forget that facts are what they are irrespective of any beliefs or biases. This paper therefore maintains its stand to accept the first (1) and reject the second premise (2) of Ethical Relativism.

REFERENCES

Arrington, Robert L. (1983). A Defense of Ethical Relativism, Metaphilosophy 14, S. 22539. Benedict, R. (1887-1948). Patterns of Culture. Ethical Relativism. All About Philosophy. (www.allaboutphilosophy.org) Gowans, C. (2008). Moral Relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (online) Joseph Rickaby, S. J. (2005). Moral Philosophy: Ethics, Deontology And Natural Law. Mcbride, D. The Sociological Imagination and a Christian Worldview. Moral Relativism. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. (www.wikipedia.com) Philosophy 302: Ethical Relativism. (philosophy.lander.edu) Slick, M. (1995 2010). Ethical Relativism. Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Velasquez, M. et al. (1992). Issues in Ethics V5 N2. (www.scu.edu/ethics) (2006). Moral_Relativism. New World Encyclopedia.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai