Ethics: Are these universal moral rules?
One of the big questions in moral
philosophy is whether or not there are unchanging moral rules that apply in all
cultures and at all times.
Moral
absolutism:
Some people think there are such
universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is called moral
absolutism.
Moral absolutism argues that there are
some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and
that these rules apply to everyone.
Immoral acts - acts that break these
moral rules - are wrong in themselves, regardless of the circumstances or the
consequences of those acts.
Absolutism takes a universal view of
humanity - there is one set of rules for everyone - which enables the drafting
of universal rules - such as the Declaration of Human Rights.
Religious views of ethics tend to be
absolutist.
Why people disagree with moral
absolutism:
- Many of us feel that the consequences of an act or the circumstances surrounding it are relevant to whether that act is good or bad
- Absolutism doesn't fit with respect for diversity and tradition
Different cultures have had different
attitudes to issues like war
Moral
relativism:
Moral relativists say that if you look
at different cultures or different periods in history you'll find that they
have different moral rules.
Therefore it makes sense to say that
"good" refers to the things that a particular group of people approve
of.
Moral relativists think that that's
just fine, and dispute the idea that there are some objective and discoverable
'super-rules' that all cultures ought to obey. They believe that relativism
respects the diversity of human societies and responds to the different
circumstances surrounding human acts.
Why people disagree with moral
relativism:
- Many of us feel that moral rules have more to them than the general agreement of a group of people - that morality is more than a super-charged form of etiquette
- Many of us think we can be good without conforming to all the rules of society
- Moral relativism has a problem with arguing against the majority view: if most people in a society agree with particular rules, that's the end of the matter. Many of the improvements in the world have come about because people opposed the prevailing ethical view - moral relativists are forced to regard such people as behaving "badly"
- Any choice of social grouping as the foundation of ethics is bound to be arbitrary
Moral relativism doesn't provide any way to deal with moral
differences between societies
Moral
somewhere-in-between-ism
Most non-philosophers think that both
of the above theories have some good points and think that
- there are a few absolute ethical rules
- but a lot of ethical rules depend on the culture
