Ethical Relativism

Report of Business Ethics On

Ethical Relativism

Submitted To: Dr. Sahib Khan Channa On: December 6, 2011

Submitted By: Sadia Amin (8840) Sec : E

[Type text]

Page 1

Ethical Relativism

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement: .................................................................................................................... 4 Letter of Transmittal .................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction..6 Ethics7 Concept of Ethics.................................................................................................. 7 Ethics as a Normative Field of Study ................................................................. 7 Ethics and Religion .............................................................................................. 8 Ethics and Law ................................................................................................... 11 Morals: ............................................................................................................... 13 Virtue.................................................................................................................. 13

Relativism.14 Concept of Relativity And Relativism ..................................................................................... 14 Basic relativistic statement: .................................................................................................... 14 Secondary Relativistic statement ............................................................................................. 15 Ethical Relativism.16 Definition of Ethical Relativism: ............................................................................................. 16 What is Ethical Relativism? ..17 History of Ethical Relativism 18 Ethical Relativism's Position.20 Descriptive Relativism20 Meta-ethical relativism..20 Normative relativism..20

Views on Meta-Ethical Relativism..20

[Type text]

Scientific View.21 Philosophical Views.21

Page 2

Ethical Relativism
Religious Views23

Ethical Relativism vs. Cultural Relativism:.24 Ethical Perspectives of Cultural Relativism.25 EGOISM:.................................................................................................................... 26 SOCIAL GROUP RELATIVISM: ............................................................................... 28 CULTURAL RELATIVISM: ....................................................................................... 29 UTILITARIANISM; ................................................................................................... 31 DEONTOLOGY: ......................................................................................................... 32

Cultural Relativism and Universal Moral Principles. ..33 Ethical Relativism and Ethical Inquiry.35 Ethical Absolutism, Ethical Objectivism, Ethical Relativism..36 TWO FORMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM37 1.Personalism and ..38 2.Conventionalism38 Arguments for Cultural Relativism..38 Cultural Differences Argument39

Argument from Moral Skepticism:.40 Arguments for Ethical Objectivism (against Ethical Relativism):.41 There Are Some Universals in Codes of Behavior across Cultures42 Counterintuitive Consequences of Ethical Relativism. There Is Less Disagreement than there Seems to Be THE ETHICAL DILEMMA 44 Critics of relativism..45 Article on Ethical Relativism.46

BIBLIOGRAPHY: ..................................................................................................................... 49

[Type text]

Page 3

Ethical Relativism

Acknowledgement:

In the name of Allah, the most beneficent and merciful who gave us strength and knowledge to complete this report. This report is a part of our course Business ethics. This has proved to be a great experience. I, would like to express our gratitude to teacher Sir Dr. Sahib Khan Channa for providing me with the opportunity to work on this report & for her sustain all the way in the course of the semester and for making us understand the course so systematically & comprehensively.

[Type text]

Page 4

Ethical Relativism

Letter of Transmittal

December 6, 2011 Sir Sahib Khan Channa Instructor of Business Ethics, Institute Of Business Management, Karachi. Respected Teacher, Subject: Report on Ethical Relativism This experience of working provided me with the unique insight into the whole concept of ethical relativism its different perspectives and important of its substantial study in business. . This gave me practical experience to see how much its is important in business to consider ethical relativity in conduction of business in different societies. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to work on this report. Sadia Amin (8840)

[Type text]

Page 5

Ethical Relativism

Introduction
It is a self-evident fact that across that world, there is a bewildering variety of different moral codes and practices. As well as varying geographically, ideas of right and wrong have changed continuously over time. Because of this sheer diversity of moral codes and practices, it then seems therefore logical that there are no absolute moral truths. The prevailing ethical code in Sweden during the Fifteenth Century would be the right one for a Medieval Swede, just as it would probably be the wrong one, incompatible for an Ancient Egyptian. Subsequently, it then seems logical to assume that morality is in no sense absolute or universal, but rather defined relative to the society in which it exists. It may be thought that not only are certain acts believed to be morally right in one society but wrong in another, but actually are right in one and are wrong in another. This theory is known as Ethical Relativism. Ethical Relativism is a meta-ethical theory in that it questions the status of ethical theories as opposed to simply human behavior (Warburton 1995). It exists in the sense of describing both relativity in ethics between individuals as well between societies. It is this latter sense on which this essay will focus. Relativism has existed for a long time, with an early proponent in the Ancient Greek Sophist, Protagoras. It has been in more recent times, however, that Sociologists and Anthropologists have found it useful to help explain and understand the vast catalogue of moralities amongst the human race, as well as ...because they have often seen at first hand the destruction wreaked on other societies by a crude importation of Western values (Ibid. ). Because of this, it is said that Relativism promotes tolerance and discourages social criticism. However, the proponents and detractors of Relativism continue to be divided. As we have seen some philosophical discussions in ontology (we considered the question whether God exists from a philosophical perspective) and in epistemology (we considered in particular the question whether skepticism about the external world and about the future is justified). We now turn to the third area of philosophy, viz. ethics. Ethics is the study of values,
[Type text] Page 6

Ethical Relativism
in particular moral values. In this unit, we will consider the question of ethical relativism, while in the next two units we will discuss two major ethical theories: utilitarianism and Kants deontological moral theory. Before describing ethical relativism its is important to understand ethics and the concept of relativity.

Ethics
Definition of Ethics
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about moralitythat is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc.

Concept of Ethics
Before we proceed, let us clarify three points. First, we need to distinguish ethics in the sense we intend here (as a field of study) from ethics understood as a system of beliefs. Second, we need to understand why most (not all) philosophers agree that the study of ethics is independent of Religion. Third, we need to understand the difference between ethics and law.

Ethics as a Normative Field of Study

The term ethics is ambiguous. It sometimes signifies the philosophical discipline that deals with morality. But it also signifies a system of beliefs about what is right or wrong (as in According to Christian ethics . . . or According to Buddhist ethics . . .). We will be using the term ethics only in the first sense. Ethics is a normative field investigating broadly conceived morality. An important question ethicists ask is: Is it right to do X? One branch of ethics attempts to construct general theories which could give us a principled answer to the above question. In other words, the theories not only aim to tell us what is right but also why it is right.
[Type text] Page 7

Ethical Relativism
Ethics deals with human behavior (actions), character, customs, and institutions. But there are two ways of dealing with these: normative and descriptive. Consider two claims: (1) It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. (2) Innocent human beings are sometimes killed.

Claim (1) is normative it tells us what the world should be or ought to be like. Claim (2) is descriptive it tells us what the world is like.
The concern of ethics is always normative (or prescriptive) not descriptive. The concern of disciplines such as psychology or anthropology is descriptive.

Ethics and Religion

Many religions have developed ethical belief systems (prescribing what constitutes the right behavior). There are also secular ethical belief systems. Religions do not usually offer theories that would explain why the behavior prescribed is right (save for it being endorsed by the deity). There is an old philosophical argument (first proposed by Plato), which is designed to establish that ultimately all ethical questions are independent of religion and must be investigated on their own grounds. In one of the best know of Platonic dialogues Ethyphro, Plato considers the question of what is piety. One of the answers, which he investigates, is that something is pious (or holy) if and only if it is beloved by the gods (let us call it hypothesis (h)): (h) Something is holy if and only if it is beloved by the gods.

Plato thinks that this is an interesting view but raises what looks like an innocent
question: The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods. (Plato, Euthyphro )

[Type text]

Page 8

Ethical Relativism
In other words, Plato notes that there are two possible ways of thinking about the relation: (a) Something is beloved by the gods because it is holy. (b) Something is holy because it is beloved by the gods. There is a fundamental difference between these two ways of understanding the relation. If the first interpretation (a) is true, i.e. if we agree that the gods love something because it is holy, then in effect it looks like we have not given any explanation of why something is holy. It may have sounded like hypothesis (h) is giving some explanation of holiness but if it is interpreted as claim: (a) then no explanation of holiness has been given. After all, for us to claim that something is beloved by the gods because it is holy, we need to have an understanding of what holiness is. Claim (a) offers no such understanding. If the second interpretation (b) is true, on the other hand, i.e. if something is holy because it is beloved by the gods then hypothesis (h) does too (at least purport to) explain the nature of Holiness. But one has to wonder whether it is an adequate explanation. After all, it looks like Holiness is a matter of gods whim. If the gods love playing soccer then playing soccer is holy. If the gods love eating cheesecake then eating cheesecake is holy. If the gods love killing one another then killing one another is holy. What is holy then becomes a matter of gods whims. And that Plato found objectionable. He thought that there was being holy or not was an objective matter, independent of anyones (including gods) whims. Platos discussion of this issue has been very influential. As I said, there is almost a consensus among philosophers that it shows why ethics is to be investigated on its own grounds, independently of religion. Here is a way of applying Platos argument to the socalled Divide Command Theory of morality, according to which morality consists in obedience to Gods commands (let us focus just on the ten commandments). Plato asks us, in effect, which do we believe: (A) God prescribed the Ten Commandments because they are good/right. (B) The Ten Commandments are good/right because God prescribed them. (If you are inclined to accept (A) and (B), please read the framed note. Otherwise, you can skip it for now or for ever. (A) and (B) are intended in such a way that they do exclude each other: if you think one is true, you cant think the other is true. However, there is a linguistic ambiguity in (B) such that some people want to accept both (A) and (B). The note identifies two readings of (B) one of which is compatible with (A), the other not.)
[Type text] Page 9

Ethical Relativism

Claim (B) is subject to two readings: (B1) The Ten Commandments are good/right -- after all, God prescribed Them; God would not have prescribed them were they bad/wrong. (B2) The Ten Commandments were neither good nor right in themselves; they Became good/right when God prescribed them. It was Gods choosing them (without thinking that they are right or good) that made them Good/right because to say that God chose them is to say that they are Good/right. This is a delicate point. Claim (B2) is the intended reading for (B). ((B1) is still compatible with (A).) The point is that there is no right or wrong before Gods choice. Therefore, from the point of view of what is right or wrong, Gods choice is arbitrary what is right (or wrong) is established only after God makes a choice. It has been objected therefore that accepting (B) (where (B2) is the intended rendition) renders Gods choice of, say, the ten commandments somewhat arbitrary. They were not chosen because they were good, they became good when they were chosen. Consider a legal analogy to help you understand the original contrast: (A) South African parliament abolished the laws of apartheid because they were evil. (B) The laws of apartheid are evil because the South African parliament

abolished them.

On interpretation (A), God is pictured as consulting the standard of what is good and bad before choosing those prescriptions that are good. On this picture, the ethical categories of good and bad are prior to Gods making certain moral prescriptions. On this view, ethics is on a par with mathematics and logic. God obeys not only the laws of mathematics (despite his omnipotence he cannot create a square circle) but also the laws of ethics (he cannot make
[Type text] Page 10

Ethical Relativism
it the case that what is in fact wrong, as e.g. killing people for fun, be right). If so, however, then ethics is independent of religion. On interpretation (B), God is pictured as creating the categories of what is good and bad, right and wrong. On this picture, ethics depends on religion because it only comes into being as a result of Gods declarations. It has been objected that the picture is in fact contrary to what many believe about God. Take what is expressed in (A) for an example. Many believe that God chose the Ten Commandments because they are good. But this means that God thought about whether they are good or bad before choosing them. This cannot have happened if one accepts (B), however. For according to the picture expressed in (B), God could not have considered whether the commandments are good or bad before choosing them it was his choosing them that made them good. Moreover, it is sometimes objected that the option expressed by (B) makes it appear as if Gods choosing those ten commandments and not a different ten (the contrary ones, for instance, i.e.: Thou shall kill, Thou shall commit adultery, etc.) was a matter of fiat. It could not after all have been a matter of Gods thinking that they were good (since the category of good is only established with the choice). These and other concerns have led a great many people toward accepting (A) and treating ethics (at the very general level) as independent of religion. Note that to treat ethics as independent of religion does not mean that the ethical precepts of a given religion are wrong. It means is that they can be evaluated independently and, of course, that they can be accepted by people who do not share a particular faith. It also means that it is possible to search for an answer to questions such as why certain ethical rules are right beyond pointing to Gods having chosen them.

Ethics and Law

[Type text]

Page 11

Ethical Relativism
Both ethics and law involve prescriptive normative claims. They both aspire to furthering social harmony. But there are important differences between them. Ethics is a matter of conscience, whereas law is a matter of covert public action. While the two sometimes overlap (we hope the overlap is greater than not), there are laws of ethics that are not legalized (e.g. there is no law against lying in general except in legally defined situations, e.g. under oath; there is no law against thinking evil thoughts about others; there is no law about planning murders), and there were (are) laws that were (are) wrong (e.g. legalized slavery, the laws of Apartheid).Some time question arises in our mind how ethics and its relativity identified that it exist , here we have the following information in this regards: Act of Creation: An ethic is a singular, logically deduced, self-created, selfchosen choice to think and behave as deemed most correct to the individual.

How of Creation: An ethic is a self-chosen standard of mental behavior based on logic.

Why of Creation: An ethic is a fixed mental reference-point that logic uses for the associating and weighing of reasoning. As triangulation1 requires a fixed point of reference, and intelligence exists through analogous association, an ethic is the fixed point for associating. Behavior of Creation: All further inward logic and externally expressed behavior is manipulated to conform to and be logically consistent with the self-created ethic. In appearance, an ethic functions similarly to a belief system in that both influence the person's reasoning, perception, and behavior. A good ethic is the inwardly self-chosen act of self-control towards creative self-betterment without regard of external (social) standards, whereas a belief is the bad internal standard that accepts external (social) standards to be the standard of behavior, resulting in an illogical noncreative conformity. An ethic is a sturdy triangulation point fixed solidly into the ground that resists all winds and floods, whereas beliefs are as toothpicks in sand, easily plucked up and rearranged to conform to the winds and waters of life. Ethics
[Type text] Page 12

Ethical Relativism
and beliefs are not the same things even though they may at times appear to produce similar behaviors.

Morals:
Morals are the creation of ethics externally applied (logical-good or illogical-bad behavior).

Virtue
Virtue is the sum creation of good ethics applied (logical behavior in creative harmony).

Depravity
Depravity is the sum creation of bad ethics applied (illogical behavior not in creative harmony).

Quality
Quality is creative harmony relative to the object's environment and ultimately weighed relative to the laws of Nature.

Before we proceed, let us clarify three points. First, we need to distinguish ethics in the sense we intend here (as a field of study) from ethics understood as a system of beliefs . Ethics provide an introduction to those problems of philosophy that are problems of moral philosophy, or ethics. We will begin by examining certain problems that arise when we try to make moral judgments: problems such as cultural relativism (Whats right for us is not necessarily right for them), subjectivism (Whats right for me is not necessarily right for you), and the role of religion in morality (e.g., Whats right is just what God says is right). Second, we will consider several historically important and still-prominent theoretical approaches to ethics that purport (most of them, anyway) to provide systematic procedures for answering questions about right and wrong. In the third and final part of the course we will consider more concretely a variety of important moral issues such as famine relief, euthanasia, abortion, and genetic engineering. Throughout, we will seek not so much to form judgments about specific moral issuesmost of us do that on our own anyway, albeit with varying degrees of certitudebut to improve our thinking about the considerations that may count as reasons for

[Type text]

Page 13

Ethical Relativism
and against the moral judgments we are tempted to make. Second, we need to understand why most (not all) philosophers agree that the study of ethics is independent of Religion. Third, we need to understand the difference between ethics and law. We can not study ethic in isolation because ethics vary from person to person, culture to culture and society To society and this concept basically lead to very controversial issue ethical relativism.

Relativism:
Concept of Relativity And Relativism
Relativism is the belief that all points of views are equally valid. It is basically divided into: Cognitive relativism: (Epistemology) All truth is relative. Thus there is no one point of view that is more valid than others. Moral/ethical relativism: (Morality) All morals are relative to the social group where it is constructed. Situational relativism: Whether an action is right or wrong depends on the situation. Situational relativism may be sometimes correct, for it is true that it may be correct to do one thing in one culture but not in another (Click herefor more details). What I object to is Cognitive and Moral relativism. I would present a short simple rebuttal to both Cognitive and Moral relativism. For an in-depth rebuttal, look at this article from CARM which demolishes logically cognitive relativism and hence also moral relativism, since moral truth is a subset of all truth.

Basic relativistic statement:

[Type text]

Page 14

Ethical Relativism
There are no absolute truths. So may I know if this statement "There are no absolute truths" is absolutely true?

If it is false, then it is false that "there are no absolute truths", thus there are absolute truths and relativism is thus falsified. If it true sometimes but not always true, then sometimes it is false that "there are no absolute truths". Therefore, there are some absolute truths, and relativism is thus falsified.

If is absolutely true that "there are no absolute truths", then there is at least one absolute truth, namely "there is no absolute truths"

The relativist may respond by saying that asserting that there are no absolute truths will lead to such a contradiction. However, if he is unsure of the truth of such a statement, then it will be OK. Therefore, to the question of whether such a statement: "there are no absolute truths" is true, they would be agnostic. However, this does not solve their problem. Their new statement is:

Secondary Relativistic statement:

No one can know anything for sure. So may I ask if you do know if this statement is correct for sure?

If you do know that this statement is true for sure, then you know at least one thing for sure, that the statement " No one can know anything for sure" is true If you do know that this statement is false, then relativism is false. If you don't know if this statement is false, then this statement is false, since this statement expresses such a view: " No one can know anything for sure". Therefore, relativism is false.

In conclusion, we can see that for both statements, relativism has been shown to be illogical and self-defeating.

[Type text]

Page 15

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism
Ethics of a society is vary widely from society to society is thing is lead to the controversial issue ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right and wrongs. Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. Some have heard of the term situational ethics which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals have evolved, that they have changed over time, and that they are not absolute. One advantage of ethical relativism is that it allows for a wide variety of cultures and practices. It also allows people to adapt ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. This is good and a valid form of relativism. The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice is all relative. Just because the group of people thinks that something is right does not make so. Slavery is a good example of this. Two hundred years ago in America, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable. Now it is not.

Definition of Ethical Relativism:

E
[Type text]

thical Relativism
Tendency to make ethical (right/wrong) choices only on the basis of what looks right or reasonable according to one's own belief or value system.

What is Ethical Relativism?

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 truth is different for
Page 16

Ethical Relativism
different people, not simply that different people believe different things to be true. While there are relativists in science and mathematics, ethical relativism is the most common variety of relativism. Almost everyone has heard a relativist slogan:

Whats right for you may not be whats right for me. Whats right for my culture wont necessarily be whats right for your culture. No moral principles are true for all people at all times and in all places.

Ethical relativism represents the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right or wrong. This position would assert that our morals evolve and change with social norms over a period of time. This philosophy allows people to mutate ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. Slavery is a good example of ethical relativism. Repeatedly the value of a human being is determined by a combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and rules that seemed to bring about the most benefit. What is ethical relativism from a subjective view? Subjective ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to individuals. Whatever you believe is right for you personally is completely up to you to determine. Subjective relativism allows you to be sovereign over the principles that dictate how you live your life. Conventional ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to cultures. Unlike the subjective view, what is right for you as an individual is dependant upon what your particular culture believes is right for you. This view supports the concept that whatever culture says is right for you really is right for you. The culture or society becomes the highest authority about what is right for each individual within that society. Conventional relativism places the individuals will subordinate to the will of the cultural majority. What is ethical relativism from an absolute view? The desire to have an absolute set of ethics implies an Absolute Ethics Source which can easily be deduced as being God. This position would be opposed to ethical relativism. Instead, the relativist excludes any religious system based on absolute morals and would condemn absolute ethics. God has the power to convey
[Type text] Page 17

Ethical Relativism
things to us that are absolute truthful and ethical. Those absolutes, however, may not be to our liking or please our subjective tastes. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord Relying on an individuals or a societys moral choices is analogous to using our sense of touch to determine the extent of a child's fever. When a child is sick, a more precise and consistent measurement is imperative. Our mental growth and the health of our soul is also worthy of a more accurate gauge than subjective human feelings. Conventional relativism implies that all you have to do is convince a few of your close friends to engage in some activity that is viewed as immoral by the rest of society. Suddenly you have now made the previously unacceptable activity ethically and morally correct for you. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

History of Ethical Relativism:

Ethical relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years. For example, the ancient Jaina Anekantavada principle of Mahavira (c. 599 527 BC) states that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth[4][5]; and the Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 481 420 BC) famously asserted that "man is the measure of all things". The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484 420 BC) observed that each society regards its own belief system and way of doing things as better than all others. Various other ancient philosophers also questioned the idea of an objective standard of morality. In the early modern era Baruch Spinoza (16321677) notably held that nothing is inherently good or evil[6]. The 18th-century Enlightenment philosopher David Hume (17111776) serves in several important respects as the father both of modern emotivism and of moral relativism, though Hume himself did not espouse relativism. He distinguished between matters of fact and matters of value, and suggested that moral judgments consist of the latter, for they do not deal with verifiable facts obtained in the world, but only with our sentiments and passions. But Hume regarded some of our sentiments as universal. He
[Type text] Page 18

Ethical Relativism
famously denied that morality has any objective standard, and suggested that the universe remains indifferent to our preferences and our troubles. It is controversial whether the late modern philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (18441900) is an anti-realist or a realist about morality. One scholar, supporting an anti-realist interpretation, concludes that "Nietzsche's central argument for anti-realism about value is explanatory: moral facts don't figure in the 'best explanation' of experience, and so are not real constituents of the objective world. Moral values, in short, can be 'explained away.' "[7] It is certain that Nietzsche criticizes Plato's prioritization of transcendence as the Forms. The Platonist view holds that what is 'true', or most real, is something which is other-worldly while the (real) world of experience is like a mere 'shadow' of the Forms, most famously expressed in Plato's allegory of the cave. Nietzsche believes that this transcendence also had a parallel growth in Christianity, which prioritized life-denying moral qualities such as humility and obedience through the church. (See Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, etc.) Anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (18871948) cautioned observers against ethnocentricism using the standards of their own culture to evaluate their subjects of study. Benedict said that morals do not exist only customs do; and that in comparing customs, the anthropologist "insofar as he remains an anthropologist . . . is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other". To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values could exist. This led some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist Edward Westermarck (18621939) ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He portrayed all moral ideas as subjective judgments that reflect one's upbringing. He rejected G.E. Moore's (18731958) ethical intuitionism in vogue during the early part of the 20th century, and which identified moral propositions as true or false, and known to us through a special faculty of intuition because of the obvious differences in beliefs among societies, which he said provided evidence of the lack of any innate, intuitive power.
[Type text] Page 19

Ethical Relativism ETHICAL RELATIVISMS POSITION:

Ethical Relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures: Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise. Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people. Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.

Views on Meta-Ethical Relativism

[Type text]

Page 20

Ethical Relativism

Scientific View
Moral Questions and Science:
Sam Harris has argued that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions that may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind. The science is founded on Ethical realism, or more specifically, Ethical naturalism.

Morality and evolution:

Some evolutionary biologists [who?] believe that morality is a natural phenomenon that evolves by natural selection. In this case, morality is defined as the set of relative social practices that promote the survival and successful reproduction of the species, or even multiple cooperating species .

Philosophical Views
o R. M. Hare
R. M. Hare (19192002), argue that moral propositions remain subject to human logical rules, notwithstanding the absence of any factual content, including those subject to cultural or religious standards or norms. Thus, for example, they contend that one cannot hold contradictory ethical judgments. This allows for moral discourse with shared standards, notwithstanding the descriptive properties or truth conditions of moral terms. They do not affirm or deny that moral facts exist, only that human logic applies to our moral assertions; consequently, they postulate an objective and preferred standard of moral justification, albeit in a very limited sense. Nevertheless, according to Hare, human logic shows the error of relativism in one very important sense (see Hare's sorting out Ethics). Hare and other philosophers also point out that, aside from logical constraints, all systems treat certain moral terms alike in an evaluative sense. This parallels our treatment of other terms such as less or more, which meet with universal understanding and do not depend upon
[Type text] Page 21

Ethical Relativism
independent standards (for example, one can convert measurements). It applies to good and bad when used in their non-moral sense, too; for example, when we say, "this is a good wrench" or "this is a bad wheel". This evaluative property of certain terms also allows people of different beliefs to have meaningful discussions on moral questions, even though they may disagree about certain "facts".

o Walter Terence Stace

"Ethical Relativity" is the topic of the first two chapters of The Concept of Morals in which Walter Terence Stace argues against moral absolutism, but for moral universalism.

Philosophical Poverty

Critics propose that moral relativism fails because it rejects basic premises of discussions on morality, or because it cannot arbitrate disagreement Many critics, including Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality, since they seem to be rejecting an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason. Practically, some forms of metaethical relativism may amount to Moral nihilism. These critics argue specifically that the moral relativists reduce the extent of their input in normative moral discussions to either rejecting the very having of the discussion, or else deeming both disagreeing parties to be correct. For instance, the moral relativist can only appeal to personal preference to object to the practice of murder or torture by individuals for hedonistic pleasure. This accusation that relativists reject widely held terms of discourse is similar to arguments used against other "discussion-stoppers" like some forms of solipsism or the rejection of induction.

[Type text]

Page 22

Ethical Relativism Simon Blackburn

Philosopher Simon Blackburn made a similar criticism, and explains that moral relativism fails as a moral system simply because it cannot arbitrate disagreements. The moral relativist might respond that their conception of morality (as being capable only of describing preferences) is more accurate, regardless of the practical use of this conception. The critics, however, maintain that their conception of morality is, for that exact reason, inadequate. Ultimately critics can do little more than to invite moral-relativists to redefine "morality" in practical or morally realistic terms.

Religious Views
Roman Catholicism
Catholic and some secular intellectuals attribute the perceived post-war decadence of Europe to the displacement of absolute values by moral relativism. Pope Benedict XVI, Marcello Pera and others have argued that after about 1960, Europeans massively abandoned many traditional norms rooted in Christianity and replaced them with continuously evolving relative moral rules. In this view, sexual activity has become separated from procreation, which led to a decline in the importance of families and to depopulation. As a result, currently the population vacuum in Europe is filled by immigrants, often from Islamic countries, who attempt to reestablish absolute values which stand at odds with moral relativism. The most authoritative response to moral relativism from the Roman Catholic perspective can be found in Veritatis Splendor, an encyclical by Pope John Paul II. Many of the main criticisms of moral relativism by the Catholic Church relate largely to modern controversies, such as elective abortion.

[Type text]

Page 23

Ethical Relativism Buddhism

Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote: By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.

Ethical Relativism vs. Cultural Relativism:

Perhaps the most prominent version of ethical relativism was cultural relativism, the view that moral principles are relative to a culture. The impetus for the view came through the development of anthropology. Anthropologists began to study other cultures frequently with the background assumption that they were studying inferior (in particular morally inferior) peoples. As their studies deepened their understanding, they began to reject this assumption and, with it, they began to reject the ethical absolutism, which seems most natural to us.Let us begin with understanding the basic positions.

[Type text]

Page 24

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Perspectives of Cultural Relativism

A person's "ethics" is the moral standard that a person uses in choices of what is "right" or "wrong". Not all choices are ethical ones. The choice of "4" or "5" in providing the "right" solution to the problem "What is 2 +2?" is not an ethical issue. Nor is the answer to the question "What is the speed of light?" Many solutions are known or can be tested through an accepted formalized logical system, such as mathematics or "scientific methods". Derived from the Greek word ethos, meaning "character", ethics is "our character". It is how we judge our and other's choices regarding behavior to one another. Ethics applies to social action, the "rightness" of which can be tested only by knowing the standard that is applied. Ethics also applies to "choice", so the absence of any ability (or opportunity) to make a choice argues that behavior that is compelled or made in ignorance may not fit the notion of "ethical behavior". Although we may not be aware of them, when we make choices there are competing standards, or ethical perspectives, that govern people's behavior. The categories of ethical perspectives presented here may not exactly coincide with those you may have seen elsewhere, but the following categories are general enough to facilitate our discussion:

Egoism or self interest - the standard is my interests Social relativism - the standard is the interests of my friends, group, or community Cultural relativism - the standard is my cultural or legal system of values Utilitarianism - the standard is "most people" or experience with consequences Deontology - the standard is an obligation to do the "right" thing

Each of these categories identifies a different kind of standard for making choices, and refers to some interest that is valued or preferred. The implication of this is that most ethical choices benefit someone or, at the least, satisfy some interest that YOU have. We may not share the same interest or preference, so there can be a temptation to judge others' ethical choices as "wrong". The exercise here is not to judge, but this is not an argument for what some call "situational" ethics -- ethical behavior may, or may not, differ with circumstances.
[Type text] Page 25

Ethical Relativism
I simply wish to point out that since decisions often are made on the basis of an ethic perspective, it is useful to understand how we discriminate between "right" and "wrong".

EGOISM:
Egoism or self-interest ethics assumes that individuals (or businesses) have an obligation to guide their conduct by a rational calculation of one's own interests. Conduct is "right" when it advances personal interests. This is not "greed" because greed connotates "excess" or demanding more than one is entitled to. Egoism assumes that there is no "entitlement", others also have interests, and interests can and should compete. No one is "more deserving" than another. Egoism makes no assumption that one person's interests are in any way "superior". Indeed, at the basis of this perspective is the view that all people are "equal", "free" and should enjoy the unrestrained liberty to pursue self-interests. This also is Adam Smith's view of the market: buyers and suppliers with opposing interests (buyers want the lowest price and suppliers want the highest price) seek a transaction, to buy or to sell. In advancing their individual interests, the competitive market renders the decision of what the "right" price is. And, it should be noted: rarely does the sell obtain his highest price, not the buyer his lowest price. The "right" price is established by each party agreeing to the transaction because they each view "this price" as acceptable - or there is no deal. For business, it follows that the only objective is to create the greatest profit or value for its owner, not to try to be altruistic by attempting to engage in activities that are unrelated to this business interest. The most well known advocate of this view today is University of Chicago Nobel economist Milton Friedman. In his classic Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman wrote:

[Type text]

Page 26

Ethical Relativism

The view has been gaining widespread acceptance that corporate officials and labor leaders have a "social responsibility" that goes beyond serving the interests of their stockholders or their members. This view shows a fundamental misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud. . . . It is the responsibility of the rest of us to establish a framework of law such that an individual pursuing his own interest is, to quote Adam Smith again, "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society it was no part of it. By pursing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

To audiences Milton Friedman illustrates his perspective with the pencil. The pencil is a product composed of many parts that are produced independently around the world. The wood is from a South American tree cut by a worker who knows nothing of its intended use. The worker labors to cut the wood for wages. The rubber is from a plantation of rubber trees, perhaps located in Indonesia, cultivated for diverse purposes and sold by its owner. The lead is made from graphite produced as by -product of mining carbon by a profit making company. The woodcutter, the plantation owner, the miner know nothing of the end product, the pencil. Each works in his own sphere to promote his economic well-being. What brings these diverse efforts together to produce the pencil is the market. Every person serving self-interest promotes the social good. Egoism as an ethical perspective is not a "free-for-all" contest, either. Self-interests must be pursued within the law. But, the objective of the law ought to be libertarian - that is, to facilitate the greatest possible liberty of individuals and of businesses constrained only by the higher need that all be able to compete fairly and unimpeded by the force of others.
[Type text] Page 27

Ethical Relativism

SOCIAL GROUP RELATIVISM:

If not the self as the proper referent to "right" conduct, then the reference is the expectations of others - our social group. Social group relativism is the view that we assess what is proper conduct by understanding what our social group expects of us. While the term "relativism" has come to imply that "any thing goes", here the term simply means that standards of conduct in our personal life and in business are governed by the expectations of others on our behavior. Simply, "We conform." We identify with several groups that comprise a larger society. Our personal identity is crowded with social categories which are assigned to us and to which we assign ourselves race, sex, ethnicity, religion, membership in social groups, political affiliations, allegiances to colleges and sports teams, age grouping, and the family into which we are born, to name a few of the social groups in which we have "membership". All of these social groups or categories identify to others, and to ourselves, who we are. The values or expectations that each of these "groups" share are varied and are sometimes conflictive for the individual. Members of social groups to which we belong impose expectations on how we should behave. Because we "belong", we also share these standards, self-impose the group's ethics, and regulate the behavior of other members to the group's standards. Group interests can articulate the self-interests of a collection of individuals, such as a union or professional organization. Groups can also express interests that seem antithetical to its members; for example, the Heaven's Gate group was held together by a shared belief that the world would soon end and that members would be saved by a spaceship once they shed their early forms (committed suicide). Because group pressure to conform to what others expect from us can exercise a very strong influence, groups can and do extract conformity to its ethical standards by subordinating the interests of the individual to that of the group. An Example: You are the Personnel Manager at a large corporation (group membership is
[Type text] Page 28

Ethical Relativism
the company). The company is about to lay off a number of employees because of a downturn in the market. Your boss hands you the list of people who will be "laid off" and instructs you not to tell anyone until the formal announcement is made next month. A close friend of yours is on the list to be laid off. Your friend is about to buy a new house. Do you tell your friend that he/she may not or will not have a job next month? There may be no "good" answer to this kind of dilemma, but self-interest would argue to secure one's own job by complying with the boss's instruction to not tell. A similar decision can be derived from "social relativism" by identifying the company as the relevant referent: "I am the company's Personal Manager and my company requires that I remain silent on this." If the solution is to tell the friend because he's about to make a major mistake - the socially relevant referent for action is the friendship group. Social group relativism may not pose a clear choice of action until we have identified what social group is most relevant to our actions. This may vary given own estimation of loyalty to as group. Since we belong to many groups, this ethical perspective can produce conflictive or "wishy-washy" decisions: "I will tell my friend and swear him/her to secrecy." But, if social relativism is the perspective to apply, what is the moral obligation of the friend to also tell his other friend about the impeding lay-offs? In business, social relativism often takes the form of industry practices. Many small businesses pay minimum wage and provide no health insurance not only because it may be in their financial interests to do so, but also because it is an accepted industry practice.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM:
In this perspective the ethical standard is culture, widely shared values. People comply with cultural values because they have been learned, communicated and reinforced through a variety of mechanisms that include child rearing, education, and participation in society's institutions. Unlike social relativism, compliance is not so much a matter of trying to conform to other's expectations, as it is a matter of complying with society's values that have become our own values. Cultural values are formalized into law when compliance is
[Type text] Page 29

Ethical Relativism
especially important to society. For example, Americans, as a culture, value football, but an American who hates football is no threat to American culture, and the widely held value is not formalized. The right to vote, however, is a core value that has progressively become formalized into the legal system. If someone attempted to obstruct the exercise of this value, this conduct would be seen not only "unethical", but illegal. The punitive consequences of breaking the law insure compliance to the important standards of conduct. Culture is not universally shared; and, this leads to conflicting ethical standards. In the U.S. it is deemed illegal and "wrong" for a man to have more than one wife at the same time. In many countries this practice is legal and permitted. A polygamous family from such a country would be confronted with serious legal problems in the U.S. Prior to the 1960's many States enforced "blue laws", laws that prohibited businesses from being open on Sunday because of dominant religious values that were expressed in law. Violators were "unethical", and operated illegally. Cultural vales are not universal, not are they fixed. For example, American cultural acceptance of, and law regarding, child labor in this country has changed over the past century. Only recently, however, have we attempted to impose this legal and cultural standard on the import of manufactured goods from other countries. Of course, there are many examples of how cultural and legal standards of conduct have changed from the treatment of women and minorities to product liability standards. Although not fixed in time, the law as a standard for ethical behavior is an attempt to forge a national consensus on individual conduct. In the case of child labor laws, the standard is high. In the case of health care entitlement, the standard in the U.S. is not as high as most European countries. Cultural relativism also does not lead to a universal sense of "right" conduct. What is "right" is governed by the national culture to which the decision maker belongs. As business becomes more international, conflictive cultural norms and laws become problematic in trying to act "ethically". Until recently most European businesses freely paid "fees" to agents in third world countries for delivering large government contacts because it made business sense; it was legal; and, "everyone else paid bribes." American businesses, however, were disadvantaged in this kind of competition because the practice of paying bribes for contracts
[Type text] Page 30

Ethical Relativism
was "unethical", illegal, and followed by other American businesses only at their peril of being caught and convicted in U.S. courts.

UTILITARIANISM;
Sometimes called "situational ethics", utilitarianism accepts that there are competing obligations that are prioritized by some contextual standard. The "right" thing to do depends not so much on an ethical standard, but on an appraisal of the situation, the alternative courses of act available, and the consequences of the choices available. A contemporary of Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham developed a political theory that attempts to resolve conflicts between individual and collective demands on one's actions utilitarianism. The theory's fundamental proposition is "the greatest good for the greatest number." The utilitarian ethic requires that a decision-maker assess the choices of all who are involved in its outcome, then commit to an action that is satisfying to a majority. When a decision harms the greatest number of people involved, it is "wrong" Individuals sacrifice their personal interests when these do not serve the general welfare. This majoritarian ethic, however, has difficulties. Who is the majority whose interests are to be considered? Is it "right" for a majority to suppress a minority? The question evokes our history of slavery, the German extermination of Jews, and current conflicts in Ireland, Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. The ancient Greeks distrusted democracy simply because it had the potential to lead to a tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill argued for a more complex utilitarian philosophy that equates utilitarian with "practical", thus "situational ethics". Mill argued that the greatest number do not always know the common good. Nor for that matter would an individual pursuing his own interest, necessarily contribute to the common good, as Adam Smith had argued. What is discernible as socially good arises from experience, practice, trial and error. Most, importantly, the social good emerges from the creation of the kind of society that engenders competing interests and ideas of the "good". Because all must be considered equal, the greatest good lies in the greatest liberty for individuals to pursue their own self-expression of what is good. The utilitarianism of Mill attempts to balance the rights of minorities with the
[Type text] Page 31

Ethical Relativism
rights of the majority by limiting majoritarian actions through the requirement that minority interests are to be protected. But, Mill is also arguing that the common good is served by allowing conflict among competing interests. The common good is worked out through a shared experience of what is beneficial to the community. The best example I know of that illustrates Mill's approach is taking place in Arizona where conflictive interests among cattlemen, environmentalists, and the government are being resolved to find workable solutions in land management. Cattlemen need cheap grazing lands; environmentalists seek protection of wild life; and, the government attempts to enforce property and environmental laws. Across the three parties it is difficult to assess what is the "public good" and a majority point of view is not very helpful. The solution required that all parties cooperate to express their competing needs and work together to find a workable solution agreeable to all. This was found through shared land ownership and shared stewarding of the land to accommodate, to an acceptable level, everyone's interests. To find this "common ground" required that each surrender personal or group interests to commit to a solution in the "public good.".

DEONTOLOGY:
The deontological perspective is sometimes stated simply as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The root word deon is from the Greek meaning "obligation" or "commitment". The philosophical theory of deontology is formalized in the writing of Immanuel Kant in the early 1800's. Kant identified that the basis of ethics is the obligation, or the duty, to do what is "right". What is "right" comes from an idealized notion of what a better world ought to be. The duty to make this a better world is something we take upon ourselves. Kant agrees that not everyone in all cases is capable of this. And, in certain circumstances there may be a compulsion to act otherwise. But, if you ask, "What is the 'right' thing to do?", imagine the world or the circumstance as it should be. Then, act on the merits of this Ideal. By raising the very question is an action or decision "right", "good" or "bad", we raise the question whether it is something we are willing to do, irrespective of the number of others who may do it. Kant termed the Ideals that people share about how people
[Type text] Page 32

Ethical Relativism
ought to behave a "categorical imperative" - a transcendent concept of "rightness of action" that is accessible to anyone who thinks about the world as it ought to be, our place in the world to foster this ideal, and our relationship with others that helps to create the world as it ought to be. To many religious people this will sound like "theology", but deontology as a field of ethics attempts to forge a concept of "right" that is more universal than a religion. Telling the truth, for example, is a moral obligation, not because it may be instructed by religion. Truth telling is a duty because we understand what it is like to be lied to. We can imagine that universally others share this dislike of being lied to. Falsehoods create distrust, undermine relationships, and if acted on, can lead to disaster. To the deontologists, this is not a utilitarian value - tell the truth only when it serves "good" purposes. To deontology, truthfulness is simply "right" as an ideal; and, we assume the obligation to commit to the Ideal as something of value in, and of itself. We opt to tell the truth because we understand that it is the "right" thing to do. As suggested in the ethical frameworks presented, we do not all see "right" in the same way. Deontology suggests that there is a universal Ethic that is available to all of us. This is an empirical problem that in Kant's reasoning is not especially a problem. As it is not possible to "prove" the existence of God, it is not possible to "prove" the existence of universal truths not rooted in scientific inquiry. But, I can conceive of a better way, a higher level of conduct; and, it is faith or belief in the value of this Ideal that connects me to an obligation to act accordingly - and, nothing else. There are many cases of business decisions based simply on doing the "right" thing. A few years ago when a New England textile mill burned down, the owner opted to continue paying the salaries and benefits of workers while the plant was being re-built. Companies such as Johnson and Johnson and Dayton Hudson spend large amounts of money for community services in the areas in which they operate as part of their desire to be good citizens. And, many small businesses spend the money to provide health insurance for its employees, simple because it is the right thing to do.
[Type text] Page 33

Ethical Relativism

Cultural Relativism and Universal Moral Principles.

The above-discussed problems of interference in foreign government, bribery, and exploitation all raise a range of ethical questions, perhaps the most important is whether companies should adopt the attitude that When in Rome, do as the Romans. This is the issue of cultural relativism, namely, whether moral values vary from society to society. Cultural relativism implies that moral values are completely defined by cultural contexts, and there is no universal standard of morality that applies to all people at all times. As long as we stay within our own cultural environment, this is no problem since we simply act morally as our society dictates. However, multinationals face the problem of relativism directly by placing one foot in the moral context of American culture, and another foot in the moral context of a foreign culture. Driven by the profit motive, multinationals will be tempted to adopt the least costly moral principles that a given cultural context will allow. Is cultural relativism true? Philosophers have debated this question for over two thousand years. Many cultural practices are unquestionably shaped by cultural environments, such as rules requiring women to covering their heads in public, and prohibitions against drinking alcohol or eating types of meat. However, there seem to be some foundational principles that appear uniformly, such as obligations to care for ones children and elderly parents, prohibitions against assault, rape, stealing, and murder. Some philosophers argue that these principles appear universally in societies since, without them, a society simply could not continue. For example, if a society permitted murder, we would all move out of town and live in seclusion. Also, philosophers point out that many seemingly diverse standards of behavior in fact reflect common values. For example, some cultures kill their elderly, which is a practice that we find abhorrent. However, putting the elderly to death is based on the principle that children should see to the happiness of their parents, and this is a principle that we too have. So, if we grant that there is some commonality to moral values around the world, then, to that extent, multinationals have moral responsibilities that cross cultural
[Type text] Page 34

Ethical Relativism
boundaries. Philosopher Norman Bowie recommends three universal moral standards that are appropriate to the activities of multinationals. First, multinationals should follow the norms that constitute a moral minimum, which are advocated in all societies. Second, multinationals should follow principles of honesty and trust, which are moral norms of the market place. These are required as foundational for any business operations, and the systematic violation of moral norms of the marketplace would be self-defeating. Third, multinationals should not violate human rights, such as basic liberty rights. Business depends on economic liberty, which is part of political and civil liberty in general. So, if we accept economic liberty, we must accept the whole liberty package. This means that businesses should not operate in countries with human rights violations unless they can be catalysts for democratic reform. Philosopher Richard T. De George offers a more specific set of guidelines for the following: Do no intentional direct harm to the host country Produce more good than bad for the host country Contribute to the host country's development Respect the human rights of its employees Pay ones fair share of taxes Respect the local culture and work with it Cooperate when local governments reform social institutions, such as land and tax reform. De George believes that third world countries lack adequate background institutions, such as regulatory agencies, which makes it all the more necessary for businesses to adherence to moral standards. In view of how strong the profit motive is to businesses, we may wonder how realistic many of these cross-cultural moral principles are. Until a few hundred years ago, most philosophers believed that moral principles were pretty useless unless people believed in God and were afraid that God would punish them for evil deeds. In more recent times, social contract theorists argue that fear of punishment from governments is the only thing that will motivate us to follow moral principles. Perhaps we can generalize from these views and say that we may not follow even the best moral principles unless an external authority monitors
[Type text] Page 35

Ethical Relativism
our actions and punishes us when we go wrong. We can see the moral responsibility of multinationals in the same light. There are reasonable moral guidelines that multinationals should follow, such as those offered by Bowie and De George, which managers of multinationals can probably figure out on their own. Without an external monitoring authority, though, businesses may set them aside for reasons of profit. Fortunately, several external mechanisms are already in place to punish irresponsible multinationals. News organizations, the United Nations, international human rights groups, and environmental groups all take special interests in seeing that multinationals live up to high standards. All of these organizations have limited clout, though, and rely mainly on the threat of bad publicity to bring about change. But even this is effective since most large businesses believe that their reputation is their biggest asset.

Ethical Relativism and Ethical Inquiry

Ethical relativism provides a flimsy moral gloss condoning questionable activities of global pharmaceuticals in developing nations. But the Emperor has no clothes. Ultimately, there's no such thing as a little bit of ethics. Medical ethics became an area of concern in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials. The Nuremberg Code was developed in response to the outrages perpetrated by Nazi researchers in the 1930s and 1940s. As medical research expanded in the United States, legislators recognized a need to codify a set of principles and regulations in the wake of publicity surrounding the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The National Research Act of 1974, which created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The commission's findings, known as the Belmont Report, are a statement of the basic ethical principles and guidelines governing the conduct of research. However, case-by-case interpretations of the Belmont Report principles and the context of their practical applications can create a lot of wiggle room. Conflicts of interest are easy to overlook in the rush to approve new, important "research". The rush to do so is very real. In the last 20 years clinical trials have become big business. And, most clinical trials are now largely controlled and conducted by the pharmaceutical industry.1
[Type text] Page 36

Ethical Relativism
Even more alarming, much of the work of these trials is outsourced to contract research organizations (CROs). In 2004, more than 40% of pharmaceutical drug development expenditures had been committed to outsourcing.2 In 2001, CROs generated $7 billion in revenues. The implications are clear. Clinical trials can no longer be accurately categorized as research. Clinical trials are a business activity, items on the balance sheet of global pharmaceutical corporations. And when money comes in the front door, ethics are thrown out the window. Developing nations are attractive sites for drug trials - standards of care are less demanding or nonexistent, regulatory oversight is rudimentary or absent, and local governments are notoriously pliable.

Ethical Absolutism, Ethical Objectivism, Ethical Relativism:

Ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no universal moral laws or principles. All moral principles are relative to cultures/societies/groups of people. (Cultural relativism is the view that moral principles are relative to cultures.) By contrast, ethical objectivism is the position that there are at least some universal moral principles that do not depend on any reference group. So understood ethical objectivism is simply the negation of the ethical relativist view. Ethical objectivism has two versions: strong ethical objectivism (or, ethical absolutism) and weak ethical objectivism. According to strong ethical objectivism (ethical absolutism), all moral principles are universal in nature no moral principles depend on any reference group. According to weak ethical objectivism, some moral principles are universal in nature and do not depend on any reference group, whereas other moral principles do depend on culture/society/group.
[Type text] Page 37

Ethical Relativism
The views can be represented as different depictions of the relation between the set of moral principles and the set of culture specific principles. According to ethical absolutism, the set of moral principles and the set of culture-specific principles have nothing in common. Moral principles are independent of any culture-specific principles on this view. According to ethical relativism (in its most common version of cultural relativism), all moral principles depend on the culture, and so are culture specific. This does not necessarily mean that all culture-specific principles are moral principles there may be principles such as table manners, which are culture-specific but have little to do with morality. Thus, according to ethical relativism, the set of moral principles is a subset of the set of culture-specific principles. The remaining position, weak ethical objectivism lies between these two extremes. According to the weak ethical objectivist, there are some moral principles that are independent of culture and some moral principles that are dependent on culture.

TWO FORMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM

There are two main types of ethical relativism: 1. Personalism and 2. Conventionalism. On the conventionalist view, moral principles are relative a social group/society/culture. When people use the term ethical relativism, they usually mean conventionalism. This is in part because the personalist view is extremely problematic, as you will soon see. After this section, I will use the term ethical relativism interchangeably with conventionalism. On the personalist view, moral principles are relative to a person. This view is sometimes expressed in ordinary conversations especially when one does not see how to resolve a moral debate one is engaged in. One then often hears such declarations as What is moral for me is not moral for you or This is so according to my morality. Contrary to appearances, the personalist view has such horrible consequences that it is rejected by most ethicists. ersonalism thought to be a self-defeating position. Pmaking this is sometimes we will be engaging in a kind of thoughtLet us suppose (inall of supposition, experiment) that
[Type text] Page 38

Ethical Relativism
us in this class (including me) are personalists. Now suppose that I announce today that all of you independently of how you were doing in this class so far are going to get an F for your final grade. In other words, I would fail all of you. What would be your reaction? Well, you would tell me, in a more or less calm fashion, that what I have done is UNFAIR! I had no reason to do it. But as a personalist, Ive got a ready reply: What is unfair according to your morality, is fair According to mine. (Moreover, I might have very good reasons to fail you. For example, I might think that failing you all would help you get a perspective on just how important grades are in the grand scheme of things.) It is very unlikely that you would be satisfied by my response. You would want to press the point that what I have done is unfair, that failing you all would be fair only in the situation if you had deserved it by how well (or poorly in this case) you were doing in this course. But this reply in unintelligible on the assumption that we are all personalists. You have no way of convincing or arguing with me about what is the right thing to do. I have my own way, you have your own way. If they dont match, so be it. In your reaction (which will be the more intense the more you actually believe me), you betray the fact that your gut intuitions tell you that you are not a personalist. In fact, those intuitions reveal that in the interpersonal character lies in the very nature of moral concepts. One of the functions of ethical thinking is to facilitate, improve and harmonize our relations with others. Personalism annihilates this function of moral discourse altogether. Indeed, it is arguable that there is nothing of it left over. All there is in personalism is an individuals opinion concerningmoral matters. Still, there may be a healthy thought behind the appeal of personalism. Here is one such: every individual has a right to choose their own views moral or otherwise. But one can accept such thoughts without being a personalist.

[Type text]

Page 39

Ethical Relativism

Arguments for Cultural Relativism

Cultural Differences Argument:
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes. (2) Moral opinions vary from culture to culture. (3) Neither opinion is right or wrong. There is no objective truth in morality. The main problem with the argument is the transition from (2) to (3). From the fact that Opinions vary it does not yet follow that neither is right or wrong. If your opinion concerning the time you were invited to Thanksgivings Dinner varies from that of your brother, it does yet mean that neither of you is right or wrong. If opinions vary concerning whether the theory of evolution provides an accurate reconstruction of our past, this in itself does not show that there is no right answer. If so, then the argument certainly does not establish that there are no objective moral principles.

Argument from Moral Skepticism:

(1) Our moral opinions are determined by our cultures moral code. (2) We cannot take an extra-cultural stance. We cannot know that there are objective moral laws. Note that the conclusion here is not quite the view of ethical relativism for ethical relativism involves the claim that there are no objective (culture-independent) moral laws. Here the claim is weaker, viz. that we cannot know that there are objective moral laws. The argument does undercut our confidence in ethical objectivism but this by itself does not yet constitute an argument for ethical relativism. Still, the argument is not unproblematic. The transition from premise (1) to premise (2) is

[Type text]

Page 40

Ethical Relativism
Questionable. It is certainly not the case that (2) follows from (1). The most that follows from (1) is that pre-reflectively, we do not take an extra-cultural stance. It does not follow that we cannot do so. There are at least two reasons to think that even if it is the case that our moral opinions are determined by our culture, it still might be possible for us to take an extracultural stance. First, moral beliefs are not the only beliefs we acquire in virtue of our upbringing. Most children grow in the unquestionable belief that their parents know what is good for them. Come teenage years this belief is rejected flat out. Come mid-life crisis it is reconsidered again. We grow up in the belief that the sun moves around the Earth (it is very hard to resist its empirical obviousness). But we eventually reject this belief too. Why could moral beliefs not be revised as well? Can you think of moral beliefs that you have already changed your mind about? Do you think this is a good rebuttal? Or, is there something that the relativist can say here?) Moreover, there are some attempts to understand what is moral that do not appear to depend on culture in any obvious way.

Arguments for Ethical Objectivism (against Ethical Relativism):

There Are Some Universals in Codes of Behavior across Cultures
There are certain behavior patterns that a society must reject by and large: killing, abusing the young, lying, breaking promises or other commitments, etc. The society must guard against them at its own peril. Were the society not to establish some rules against such behaviors, the society itself would cease to exist. For example, if killing (at a whim) were permitted, the members of the society might eventually all die. And even if they did not die, they could not trust each other (they could not trust that the other guy is not about to kill
[Type text] Page 41

Ethical Relativism
them). Lack of trust at such a basic level is already tantamount to the dissolution of a society all one may feel like doing is emigrate. So, it is argued, there are some rules that all societies must accept if they are to remain in existence. These constitute the foundation of the objective moral rules that are independent of cultures. Note that the argument only establishes that there must be a presumption against killing, lying, etc. It is still compatible with their being exceptions to those rules that are dependent on cultures. For further reflection: What makes such rules moral? Even if one grants that all Societies must accept some rules, why should they count as moral? The same Argument presumably would work for eating. If people do not eat, they will die, and So their society will cease to exist. Are we to conclude that there ought to be a moral Law that people should eat and drink and procreate?

Counterintuitive Consequences of Ethical Relativism

It has been argued that ethical relativism is to be rejected because it leads to certain Counterintuitive consequences, which we cannot accept among them: No customs of other societies/cultures can be subject to moral evaluation. So, antiSemitism, slavery, apartheid, if accepted by a society/culture cannot be deemed morally wrong. Correlatively, the customs of our society/culture cannot be subjected to moral Evaluation. If slavery, political oppression of minorities, etc. are accepted by our society, they are right. Only limited moral progress is possible only to the extent of accomplishing the ideals held by the society but not yet realized. The point here is this: If one is an ethical relativist, these are the consequences one has to accept. But these consequences are counterintuitive. It is extremely hard to accept that slavery or anti-Semitism are not wrong (if another society accepts them). Therefore, one should not be an ethical relativist. The relativist rejoinder: The argument does not work. It relies on the fact that the relativist has no way of evaluating the practices of other societies, e.g. that we cannot say that anti[Type text] Page 42

Ethical Relativism
Semitism in Nazi Germany was morally wrong. But this is not the case. Surely, we can say that anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany was morally wrong (from our point of view).

How good is this response, do you think? Would this count as a moral evaluation? Or
Something missing there?

There Is Less Disagreement than there Seems to Be:

The ethical relativist begins with the premise that customs of different cultures differ. He draws the preliminary conclusion that the values that are expressed by those customs differ as well. It is the difference in moral values (not just a difference in customs or behavior patterns), which is central to the ethical relativist claim. The problem is that the relation between customs and values is not straightforward. There are at least two other factors that enter the picture:

In other words, differences in customs can be due to differences in values, but also to differences in beliefs or in the circumstances in which the culture finds itself. Differences in customs can be due to differences in beliefs. Hinduism prohibits the eating of cows. Rachels argues that this only appears to reflect a difference in values because it is also believed that people reincarnate and that human souls may enter cows after death. Given this belief, the eating of a cow might be like eating a human. So the values coincide: both cultures prohibit eating humans, but they differ in their beliefs what might count as a human. Differences in customs can be due to differences in circumstances. (See Rachels
[Type text] Page 43

Ethical Relativism
detailed explanation of why the Eskimos commit infanticide, mostly on baby-girls.) He shows that it is the harsh environment and other circumstances (among others, presumably, lack of birth control methods) that leads to the infanticide. He argues that the explanation and some other facts (such as the fact that parents are willing to give up some of the newborns for adoption rather than killing them) shows that in fact the Eskimos values do not differ from our own: we both cherish children.

For further thought: Are you convinced that the values do not differ in these
Particular cases? Concerning the first case, reincarnation is in fact believed to occur Not only between human beings and cows. Does that change anything? Concerning the second case: Are you convinced that there is no difference in values? What if the Circumstances changed? Is there a difference between explanation and justification?

THE ETHICAL DILEMMA

In addition to ethical issues arising out of changing norms and contrasting social theories, ethical dilemmas plague everyone, even individuals who are honest and confident in their moral stance. Conflicts result from day-to-day business decisions that are intrinsically influenced by factors such as loyalty. For example, in choosing a course of action, individuals must ask themselves whom they are serving with their decisions: society, the corporation, their God, themselves, their family, or some other entity. Saul W. Gellerman, in his essay "Why 'Good' Managers Make Bad Choices" in The Business of Ethics and the Ethics of Business, identified four common rationalizations that lead to unethical business behavior by well-intentioned managers. One reason often cited for engaging in immoral behavior is that the activity seemed to fall within reasonably acceptable moral bounds; because everybody else was doing it, it was not "really" illegal or unethical. A second rationalization was that the unethical act was performed in the interest of the corporation; perhaps the company even expected or ordered the violator to perform the act, possibly with the threat of reprisal for inaction. A third reason was that the offender believed that the conduct was safe because it would never be discoveredbecause the risk of getting caught was so low, it was okay to commit the act.

[Type text]

Page 44

Ethical Relativism
Fourthly, offenses are carried out because the company condones the behavior, minimizes its impropriety, and assures protection for those who engage in it. In fact, employees often do have a motivation to engage in technically unethical behavior for their corporations. Studies have indicated that whistle-blowing, or divulging unethical corporate behavior, is generally frowned upon by American society. Pressure from fellow employees, managers, and even the local community can cause an employee to continue even highly unethical behavior, in the interest of being a team player and not being labeled a tattletale.

Critics of relativism
In Science and Relativism, Larry Laudan writes "The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interest and perspectives, issecond only to American political campaignsthe most prominent and pernicious manifestation of relativism of our time." The literary theorist Christopher Norris has written a book entitled "Against Relativism". He is an expert on postmodern thought, particularly deconstruction, and argues that deconstruction, properly understood, does not equate to relativism.Plato could be seen as a critic of relativism. He criticizes the views of the sophist Protagoras in his dialogue Thaetetus.Physicist Alan Sokal initiated the science wars in 1996 with his hoax paper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity".[21] . He later co-authored the book Fashionable Nonsense (also known as Intellectual Impostures) with Jean Bricmont, which criticizes the postmodernist use and (what they perceived to be) abuse of science. Kenan Malik writes: "The consequence of this [relativism] has been both to undermine the value of knowledge and to narrow the scope of intellectual and political debate".

[Type text]

Page 45

Ethical Relativism

Article on Ethical Relativism

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in 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. Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of "ethical relativism."

Ethical relativism is the theory that 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
[Type text] Page 46

Ethical Relativism
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. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices 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 the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative. Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?
[Type text] Page 47

Ethical Relativism
Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society. For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others. But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

[Type text]

Page 48

Ethical Relativism

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ethical-relativism.html#ixzz15ywdAAu2 http://www.ideachannel.com/Friedman.htm http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/socsci/philosophy/ethics/relativism.htm http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-01-00.htm http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Utilitarianism/ http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/kant/ http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/ethics/duty.html http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business/The-perceived-importance-of-ethics-and-socialresponsibility-on-organizational-effectiveness-a-surve.html#ixzz15z8C81jG www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v11n1/relativism.htm scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

[Type text]

Page 49