- Reaction score
- 1,346
- Points
- 1,040
Moral Relativism
In many threads, I have seen arguments to excuse reprehensible behaviour from people of other cultures. “It’s their way,” is one excuse I’ve often heard. To counter, I’ve often mentioned that this is a poor excuse and perfect example of moral relativism. So, I thought I’d do this wee post to explain myself. So, I’ll start out explaining a bit on “ethics” or “morality”. Then I’ll get into the difference between objectivism and relativism. I hope to make this as least painful as possible.
Ethics basically states that some “things” are good, bad or neutral. What these “things” are exactly has confounded philosophers for millennia. To illustrate, let me explain. For every act by an agent (a thinking, rational person), there is first an intent formulated by the person, then there is the act itself, and then there are the consequences or results of said action.
First, let us consider the acts that agents commit. To commit acts that go counter to established norms is considered immoral. This is Normative Ethics. Think of the Old Testament in which one can find the Ten Commandments. “I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other gods before me” is but one example. To do anything counter to any of the commandments, or rules, would be immoral, according to normative ethics. This talks about the act, and they are then judged as being good, bad (or evil) or neutral.
Now think ahead to the New Testament, which is where we can find examples of Virtue Ethics. Essentially the lesson is that if you are a virtuous person, and the acts you commit will “good”. (Aristotle also taught this as well, in which he talks of being an exemplar. Also, I think it was Saint Francis of Assisi who said “Preach the Gospel, and, if necessary, use words”. In other words, by your very person, if you are good, then your acts will be good. This essentially is talking about the intent that an agent has. So, the theory goes, if your intent is good, then your actions etc will also be good.
Now, consider the consequences of actions. The theory essentially states that irrespective of the agent’s intent, or the act itself, the moral worth is derived from the consequence or result of an action. For example, firing a rifle is amoral; however, if it hits and kills someone who doesn’t deserve to be shot, then it is immoral. If it hits and kills someone who does deserve to be shot, then it’s moral.
Are we confused yet? I’m not even going to talk about utilitarianism or categorical imperatives!
So, irrespective of any of the above, certain “things” are considered moral, immoral or amoral. I am not going to put forth my own theories on which of the above I consider correct, but the specific theories aside, philosophy, much like any other social science, is still a science. All sciences have truths that are true irrespective of time, manner or place. Consider mathematics. 2+2=4 is true today, was true in 400000000 BC, and will continue to be true on Stardate 3124.3. It’s true in Russia, it’s true in my living room, and it’s true everywhere. And it remains true whether or not someone knows mathematics. Take an infant for example, they don’t have a concept of numbers and wouldn’t recognise numerals. So, keeping this in mind, EVERYTHING is moral, immoral or amoral. And ethics is universal and not prone to individual or cultural interpretation. What exactly is moral? Many are unsure. Some feel that a deity of sorts has set forth a code. Others say that we know what is moral, immoral and amoral a priori. I hardly think that anyone can articulate what makes something moral, immoral or amoral; however, most reasonable people of any culture, faith, background or nationality will agree that they can recognise it when they see it. Much like colours. Describe orange. Don’t give examples of orange, describe it. And I’m not talking about the wavelengths frequency or whatever. I bet you couldn’t. Yet you could recognise it in a flash. Ethics is much like that.
So, just because Ahmed, Pierre, Andrew or Mao think that it’s okay to do “this” (no matter what it is), you must look at “that” outside of that person’s background or culture to judge it, and not from frequency. Look at the intent, look at the act, and look at the consequences. It’s a big job, but just because “it’s their way”, it doesn’t make it right or wrong.
In many threads, I have seen arguments to excuse reprehensible behaviour from people of other cultures. “It’s their way,” is one excuse I’ve often heard. To counter, I’ve often mentioned that this is a poor excuse and perfect example of moral relativism. So, I thought I’d do this wee post to explain myself. So, I’ll start out explaining a bit on “ethics” or “morality”. Then I’ll get into the difference between objectivism and relativism. I hope to make this as least painful as possible.
Ethics basically states that some “things” are good, bad or neutral. What these “things” are exactly has confounded philosophers for millennia. To illustrate, let me explain. For every act by an agent (a thinking, rational person), there is first an intent formulated by the person, then there is the act itself, and then there are the consequences or results of said action.
First, let us consider the acts that agents commit. To commit acts that go counter to established norms is considered immoral. This is Normative Ethics. Think of the Old Testament in which one can find the Ten Commandments. “I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other gods before me” is but one example. To do anything counter to any of the commandments, or rules, would be immoral, according to normative ethics. This talks about the act, and they are then judged as being good, bad (or evil) or neutral.
Now think ahead to the New Testament, which is where we can find examples of Virtue Ethics. Essentially the lesson is that if you are a virtuous person, and the acts you commit will “good”. (Aristotle also taught this as well, in which he talks of being an exemplar. Also, I think it was Saint Francis of Assisi who said “Preach the Gospel, and, if necessary, use words”. In other words, by your very person, if you are good, then your acts will be good. This essentially is talking about the intent that an agent has. So, the theory goes, if your intent is good, then your actions etc will also be good.
Now, consider the consequences of actions. The theory essentially states that irrespective of the agent’s intent, or the act itself, the moral worth is derived from the consequence or result of an action. For example, firing a rifle is amoral; however, if it hits and kills someone who doesn’t deserve to be shot, then it is immoral. If it hits and kills someone who does deserve to be shot, then it’s moral.
Are we confused yet? I’m not even going to talk about utilitarianism or categorical imperatives!
So, irrespective of any of the above, certain “things” are considered moral, immoral or amoral. I am not going to put forth my own theories on which of the above I consider correct, but the specific theories aside, philosophy, much like any other social science, is still a science. All sciences have truths that are true irrespective of time, manner or place. Consider mathematics. 2+2=4 is true today, was true in 400000000 BC, and will continue to be true on Stardate 3124.3. It’s true in Russia, it’s true in my living room, and it’s true everywhere. And it remains true whether or not someone knows mathematics. Take an infant for example, they don’t have a concept of numbers and wouldn’t recognise numerals. So, keeping this in mind, EVERYTHING is moral, immoral or amoral. And ethics is universal and not prone to individual or cultural interpretation. What exactly is moral? Many are unsure. Some feel that a deity of sorts has set forth a code. Others say that we know what is moral, immoral and amoral a priori. I hardly think that anyone can articulate what makes something moral, immoral or amoral; however, most reasonable people of any culture, faith, background or nationality will agree that they can recognise it when they see it. Much like colours. Describe orange. Don’t give examples of orange, describe it. And I’m not talking about the wavelengths frequency or whatever. I bet you couldn’t. Yet you could recognise it in a flash. Ethics is much like that.
So, just because Ahmed, Pierre, Andrew or Mao think that it’s okay to do “this” (no matter what it is), you must look at “that” outside of that person’s background or culture to judge it, and not from frequency. Look at the intent, look at the act, and look at the consequences. It’s a big job, but just because “it’s their way”, it doesn’t make it right or wrong.