In the light of recent debates I have had about the nature of morality; I want to reinstate my point of view that morality is indeed objective. I would like to highlight the fundamental flaws of ethical relativism and why exactly I cannot accept it.
Let me first define ethical relativism. It is 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 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.
1)
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.
2)
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.
3)
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?
4)
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 is wrong despite the beliefs of the society itself. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.
Just because the Zani's believed their actions were morally justified, that does not deem their actions moral.
To answer a point Martin recently made.
'What is the point of Objective Morality if there is no way to find
objective moral truths. Since whatever I believe is moral is ultimately relative to my own moral standard, how can we ever decide on what is objectively moral?'
I will try to answer this question given my limited understanding of morality.
Consider two sets of actions, set A ( Do not rape ) and set B ( Rape if it makes you feel better). Now, clearly these are two opposing viewpoints, the factor deciding which set of actions is more moral strictly depends on the individual standards.
In the case of ethical relativism.
Neither of the two sets are really wrong or really right. Thus trying to discuss which set is the more moral of the two is utterly useless. Trying to debate the subject of morality itself seems pointless. Since nothing is really right or wrong, there is no use in imposing one morality over the other since they are equally justifiable.
In the case of objective morality.
Either set is clearly more moral than the other according to an objective moral standard. Thus, it is in fact beneficial to try and decide which set is morally right. Since either set A or set B contain the moral truth; it would then make sense to decide on one over the other. This is not the case with ethical relativism.
This is one reason why I think the existence of an objective morality is indeed beneficial. It gives reason to better our society and resort to absolute moral truths such as set A, instead of simply settling on what the law of our country states.
Let me first define ethical relativism. It is 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 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.
1)
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.
2)
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.
3)
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?
4)
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 is wrong despite the beliefs of the society itself. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.
Just because the Zani's believed their actions were morally justified, that does not deem their actions moral.
To answer a point Martin recently made.
'What is the point of Objective Morality if there is no way to find
objective moral truths. Since whatever I believe is moral is ultimately relative to my own moral standard, how can we ever decide on what is objectively moral?'
I will try to answer this question given my limited understanding of morality.
Consider two sets of actions, set A ( Do not rape ) and set B ( Rape if it makes you feel better). Now, clearly these are two opposing viewpoints, the factor deciding which set of actions is more moral strictly depends on the individual standards.
In the case of ethical relativism.
Neither of the two sets are really wrong or really right. Thus trying to discuss which set is the more moral of the two is utterly useless. Trying to debate the subject of morality itself seems pointless. Since nothing is really right or wrong, there is no use in imposing one morality over the other since they are equally justifiable.
In the case of objective morality.
Either set is clearly more moral than the other according to an objective moral standard. Thus, it is in fact beneficial to try and decide which set is morally right. Since either set A or set B contain the moral truth; it would then make sense to decide on one over the other. This is not the case with ethical relativism.
This is one reason why I think the existence of an objective morality is indeed beneficial. It gives reason to better our society and resort to absolute moral truths such as set A, instead of simply settling on what the law of our country states.
Buy on AliExpress.com
