In the light of the recent debates I have had with some members in forum regarding the nature of morality. I would like to reinstate my opinion that objective moral truths are a fundamental part of reality.
I will highlight the reasons for why I cannot believe in ethical relativism, and try to convey the obvious problems regarding this theory.
To define ethical relativism, it is basically 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 society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. This states that there are no universal moral standards, ones 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. Thus, it is apparently useless to debate on topics that contain different moral standpoints.
If, say there were two sides, A and B, discussing whether the United States were right in going into Iraq. (A) might state that they were morally justfied in order to preserve human freedom and democracy. Position (B) might hold that they were morally wrong in doing so because they were causing harm to many innocent people. The point here is this, what is the framework for resolving such a moral dispute? If ethical relativism was indeed correct, a debate on this topic would be absolutely pointless.
Another viable point is 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.
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.
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?
My final point is 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 America is considered morally wrong despite it being socially acceptable.
The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society. I have made this point before and I find it amusing that some atheists refuse to accept this. Just because Nazi's thought they were morally justified in exterminating millions of people, that does not deem their actions morally right.
Quick note.
The logical flaws with ethical relativism are indeed numerous. Here's what I think the problem is. Just as how some Christians and Muslims seem so blinded by their beliefs that they refuse to accept universal scientific truths such as evolution, it seems rather apparent to me that atheists are blinded by their own sets of beliefs and instead of embracing the reality of objective morality, they seem to reject it and instead, resort to whatever set of beliefs is most compatible with atheism.
I will highlight the reasons for why I cannot believe in ethical relativism, and try to convey the obvious problems regarding this theory.
To define ethical relativism, it is basically 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 society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. This states that there are no universal moral standards, ones 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. Thus, it is apparently useless to debate on topics that contain different moral standpoints.
If, say there were two sides, A and B, discussing whether the United States were right in going into Iraq. (A) might state that they were morally justfied in order to preserve human freedom and democracy. Position (B) might hold that they were morally wrong in doing so because they were causing harm to many innocent people. The point here is this, what is the framework for resolving such a moral dispute? If ethical relativism was indeed correct, a debate on this topic would be absolutely pointless.
Another viable point is 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.
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.
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?
My final point is 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 America is considered morally wrong despite it being socially acceptable.
The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society. I have made this point before and I find it amusing that some atheists refuse to accept this. Just because Nazi's thought they were morally justified in exterminating millions of people, that does not deem their actions morally right.
Quick note.
The logical flaws with ethical relativism are indeed numerous. Here's what I think the problem is. Just as how some Christians and Muslims seem so blinded by their beliefs that they refuse to accept universal scientific truths such as evolution, it seems rather apparent to me that atheists are blinded by their own sets of beliefs and instead of embracing the reality of objective morality, they seem to reject it and instead, resort to whatever set of beliefs is most compatible with atheism.
Buy on AliExpress.com
