He Ethical relativism Is the theory that holds that there is no absolute universal rule in the moral rectitude of society. Consequently, it is argued that the ethical behavior of an individual depends or is relative to the society to which he belongs.
It is also called epistemological relativism, since its basic idea is that there are no universal truths about the world, only different ways of interpreting it. This one goes back to the Greek philosophy, where one worked with the phrase"the man is the measurement of all the things".
Subsequently, more contemporary statements followed, such as that truths are subjective depending on the point of view of the person who analyzes them, or that for each culture there are different types of agreement.
Likewise there are positions towards the scientific that seek to be objective and logical, called relative truths - ethics. From these considerations comes moral relativism, the theory that there are no universally binding absolute, objective, and moral truths.
The ethical relativist denies that there is any objective truth about right and wrong. Ethical judgments are not true or false, because there is no objective truth that is adequate for a moral judgment.
It can be said that for these authors, morality is relative, subjective, and non-binding.
Characteristics of ethical relativism
- What is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so that there are no universal moral standards.
- Whether or not an individual acts in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he or she belongs.
- There are no absolute or objective moral norms that apply to all people everywhere and at all times.
- Ethical relativism holds that even beyond environmental factors and differences in beliefs, there are fundamental disagreements between societies. In a sense, we all live in radically different worlds.
- Each person has a set of beliefs and experiences, a particular perspective that colors all their perceptions.
- Their different orientations, values and expectations govern their perceptions, so that different aspects are highlighted and certain characteristics are lost. Even as our individual values emerge from personal experience, social values are grounded in the peculiar history of the community.
- They see morality as a set of norms, habits and common customs that have obtained social approval in time, so that they appear part of the nature of things, as the facts.
Types
Subjective
Subjectivism makes morality a useless concept, because, in its premises, exerts little or no interpersonal criticism and its judgments are logically possible.
While some cultures may feel good about the killing of bulls in a bullfight, there are many others who no doubt feel the opposite. No argument on the matter is possible. The only thing that could be used for a member of this culture or any other person would be the fact that it would be wrong if they did not live on their own principles.
However, one of them might be that hypocrisy is morally permissible (feels good about it), so it would be impossible for him to do wrong. This raises controversy as to what would be ethically correct compared to other points of view.
Different artistic, literary and cultural personalities have conflicting opinions regarding these themes, since it means that all individuals are members of diverse cultures and that good or evil is morally subjective, depending on who the judges are and what the meaning is Of interpersonal evaluation.
There seems to be a contradiction between subjectivism and the concept of morality, since morality has the minimum objective of preventing a state of chaos in which life is the way it is desired and subjectivism does not rest on the social agreement of Principle (as the conventionalist maintains) or on an objective basis independent of norms that bind all people for the common good.
Conventional
In the view of conventional ethical relativism, there are no objective moral principles, but all are valid and justified by virtue of their cultural value, taking into account the acceptance, where the social nature of morality is recognized, being precisely in its power And virtue.
In addition, it recognizes the importance of the social environment, through the generation of customs and beliefs, and this is why many people assume that ethical relativism is the correct theory, as they are attracted to their liberal philosophical stance.
Therefore, this position seems to strongly involve an attitude of tolerance towards other cultures. According to Ruth Benedict,"recognizing ethical relativity will lead to a more realistic social faith, accepting as a foundation hope and as a new basis, tolerance for coexisting and equally valid living standards."
The most famous of those occupying this position is the anthropologist Melville Herskovits, who argues even more explicitly in his lines that ethical relativism implies intercultural tolerance:
1) Morality is relative to their culture
2) There is no independent basis for criticizing the morality of any other culture
3) Therefore one must be tolerant with the morals of other cultures.
Differences between the social sciences and ethics
The differentiation of these concepts has been key in the theory of ethical relativism, since while anthropology and sociology are empirical sciences with fields of study based on observations and facts, ethics is a normative discipline, on moral judgments and values.
The social sciences are limited to what can be observed, measured and verified. The question of what is right and wrong is outside the discipline, immersed in the field of ethics. A scientist can only predict a certain outcome, and not if that result is morally right or wrong.
When a scientist makes a moral statement, he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as a concerned citizen who has recognized the separation of roles and has hung in parentheses his role as a researcher to become a citizen.
For example, it is expected that a physician treats all patients equally, regardless of who they are, or that a judge, even if outside his court, strongly condemns an individual, in his role is limited to obtaining evidence that indicates or not To the accused.
Also, an actor can win applause for the excellence of his performance as a villain, not for the approval of what his character did, but for the merits of his work.
Exactly the same thing happens with the scientist who has fulfilled his full function when he has clearly represented the consequences of a type of behavior (Lundberg 1965, page 18).
Reviews
Most ethicists reject this theory, as some claim that while the moral practices of societies may be different, the underlying moral principles underlying these practices are not.
In addition, it is argued that it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative, while others are not.
Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local customs, while others, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral norms and judged as bad despite Of the many other differences that exist between cultures.
Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of their implications in individual moral beliefs, stating that if the goodness or badness of an action depends on the norms of a society, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's own society and Away from those in which one acts immorally.
For example, if membership in a society with racial or sexist practices is morally permissible for that group of individuals, then should these practices be accepted as morally right?
This is why critics consider that this view of ethical relativism promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society.
Justifications of ethical relativism
Herodotus Was a Greek historian of the fifth century BC, who advanced in this view when he observed that different societies have different customs and that each person thought that the customs of their own society were the best.
Some contemporary sociologists and anthropologists have argued along similar lines that morality is a social product, developed differently in each culture.
According to these authors, the different social codes are all that exist. There is no such thing as what is"really"correct, apart from these social codes, for there are no neutral norms of culture that can be used to determine which point of view of society is correct.
Each society develops standards that are used by people to distinguish between acceptable behavior and an unacceptable behavior, and each judgment of good and evil presupposes one or other of these norms.
Another argument that seeks to justify ethical relativism is due to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), who asserted that moral beliefs are based on feeling, or emotion, not on reason.
This idea was developed by later philosophers, such as Charles L. Stevenson (1908-1979) and RM Hare (1919-2002), who argued that the primary function of moral language is not to declare facts, but to express feelings of approval or disapproval toward some kind of action or to influence the attitudes and actions of the the rest.
Ethical relativism is attractive to many philosophers and social scientists, as it seems to offer the best explanation of the variability of moral belief. It also offers a plausible way of explaining how ethics fits in the world as described by modern science.
Finally, ethical relativism justifies being adequate to explain the virtue of tolerance, since it seeks to accept the values and values of all societies.
CONCLUSIONS
There are those who recognize that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds them that different societies have different moral beliefs and that their beliefs are deeply influenced by culture.
It also encourages them to explore beliefs that differ from theirs, while challenging them to examine the motives of beliefs and values they possess.
On the other hand, it raises the tolerance that is certainly a virtue, but if morality as it arises is relative to each culture, and if any of these cultures do not have a principle of tolerance, its members will not therefore have to be tolerant .
Herskovits seems to treat the principle of tolerance as the only exception to his relativism. But from a relativistic point of view there is no more reason to be tolerant than to be intolerant, and none of these positions is morally better than the other.
References
- David Wong, Ethical Relativity (University of California Press, 1984)
- Michael Krausz, ed., Relativism: Interpretation and Conflict (University
Of Notre Dame Press, 1989). - Hugh LaFollette,"The Truth in Ethical Relativism,"Journal of SociaL Philosophy (1991).
- Peter Kreeft, A Refutation Of Moral Relativism: Interviews With An Absolutist (Ignatius Press, 1999).