|
People develop their
thinking concerning morality over time.
They do so as a result of interactions with individuals and social
institutions. In different
societies each with their own cultures there are different ideas
concerning how humans are to behave.
Different societies and cultures have different rules, different
mores, laws and moral ideas.
In the twentieth century
people became quite aware of these differences.
The impact of this information when coupled with the theories of
the Existentialists and Pragmatists became quite significant in the realm
of Ethics. The
Existentialists with their theory of radical freedom and human choice and
responsibility placed morality within the sphere of human decision-making.
There were no essences before existence of beings and there would
be no rules before the existence of the beings who would make the rules
for themselves. The
Pragmatists also departed from belief in absolutes and generalizations and
any universal criteria for judgment.
For the pragmatists reality itself was not a given but a human
construct and reflective of the society’s criteria for judgment
concerning truth. So, it came
to pass as a part of Post Modernism that there would be a school or
tradition of thought that would hold that all thinking about Ethics was
also subject to human decision making within a social framework.
This school would hold that there are no universal or absolute
principles in Ethics to which all humans are to be subject.
Through the twentieth
century many humans have come to accept a good deal of the relativistic
perspective. Relativism has
entered into the thinking of many people, even people who would hold for
some absolutist ideas. Yes ,
there are people who hold inconsistent and contradictory ideas concerning
morality and ethics. How does
this come to be?
First let us clarify
some terms:
Cultural
relativism
Descriptive
ethical relativism
Normative
ethical relativism
Cultural relativism
describes the simple fact that there are different
cultures and each has different ways of behaving, thinking and
feeling as its members learn such from the previous generation.
There is an enormous amount of evidence to confirm this claim.
It is well known by just about every human on the planet that
people do things differently around the globe.
People dress differently, eat differently, speak different
languages, sing different songs, have different music and dances and have
many different customs.
This is a scientific theory
well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists.
Descriptive ethical relativism
describes the fact that in different cultures one of the variants is the
sense of morality: the mores, customs and ethical principles may all vary
from one culture to another. There
is a great deal of information available to confirm this as well.
What is thought to be moral by many in one country may be thought to be
immoral by many in another country and even made illegal in another country.
Examples:
|
Not considered to be Immoral
by many in USA
|
Considered to be Immoral by
many in
|
|
|
|
|
Eating Beef
|
India
|
|
Drinking alcohol, Gambling
|
Middle Eastern Islamic Countries
|
|
Women in school or business
|
Afghanistan
|
|
Women wearing shorts, face uncovered
|
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
|
Or the reverse pattern
|
Considered to be Immoral by
many in USA
|
Not considered to be Immoral
by many in
|
|
Killing newborn females
because they are female
|
China, India
|
|
Female genital mutilation
|
Many African nations (It is female
circumcision)
|
|
Family kills a woman family member who is
victim of a rape
|
Somalia, Sudan
|
Can you think of other
examples?
Normative ethical relativism
is a theory, which claims that there are no universally valid moral
principles. Normative ethical relativism theory says that the moral
rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that
there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all
times. The theory
claims that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (Ethics)
is always relative. Each
culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the
foundation for morality. The
theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case and will
always be the case.
This is a philosophical
theory that is NOT well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural
anthropologists, nor could science support a theory about the past and
future! It is a theory that
has evidence against it. (see next lectures)
In the next lecture we will
examine this theory and its implications and criticisms closely for now
consider the table below which shows the contrast between absolutism and
relativism.
|
Relativism
|
Skepticism
-no moral principles exist
|
Absolutism
There are universal ethical principles that apply to all humans.
There are absolutes.
|
|
Cultural Relativism
|
|
There exists a moral core-without which
i.society
will not flourish
ii.individuals
will not flourish
|
|
Descriptive Ethical Relativism
|
|
|
|
Normative Ethical Relativism
|
|
|
|
no universal criteria
|
|
A) there exist moral truths
|
|
no absolutes not even tolerance
|
|
B) Reason can discover truths
|
|
no criticism of majority
|
|
C) it is in our interest to promote them
|
|
reduces to subjectivism
|
|
|
|
We should not make moral judgements
concerning other individuals and societies.
|
|
We do and should judge other individuals and
societies with reason and with sympathy and understanding.
|
Have you ever thought or
heard and not challenged the idea that we should not make moral judgments
of other people? Have you
ever thought that each person must make up his or her own mind about what
his or her moral rules will be? Have
you ever accepted the idea that "Unless you walk a mile in the other
man's moccasins, you can not make a judgment concerning him"?
Have you ever thought that
while some act might not be morally correct for you it might be correct
for another person or conversely have you thought that while some act
might be morally correct for you it might not be morally correct for
another person? Have you
thought that each person must make up his or her own morality?
Well, if you answered,
"Yes" to any of the above you have relativistic ideas operating
in your thought system. Now
you might ask yourself whether or not you really accept those ideas?
Do you believe that you must
go out and kill several people in order to make the judgment that a serial
killer is doing something wrong? Do
you really believe that you need to kidnap, rape, kill and eat several
young men in order to reach the conclusion that Jeffrey Damer did
something wrong, morally wrong and horrible?
Do you think that killing
newborn babies because they are females is wrong, even for the Chinese?
Don't you think that once the Chinese and Indians and Africans have
a higher quality of life and are better educated that they will and should
stop doing those things that harm, kill or degrade women?
If you do you have absolutist ideas working in you as well.
How can you hold opposing ideas at the
same time?
Normative ethical relativism
is a theory, which claims that there are no universally valid moral
principles. Normative ethical relativism theory says that the moral
rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that
there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all
times. The theory
claims that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (Ethics)
is always relative. Each
culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the
foundation for morality. The
theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case and will
always be the case. The
theory claims not only that different cultures have different views but
that it is impossible for there ever to be a single set of ethical
principles for the entire world because there are no universal principles
that could apply to all peoples of the earth.
The theory holds that all such thinking about ethical principles is
just a reflection of the power holders of a particular culture.
So, each culture does and always will make its own ethical
principles. Any attempt of those from one culture to apply their
principles to other peoples of other cultures is only a political move and
an assertion of power.
This is a
philosophical theory that is NOT well supported by the evidence gathered
by cultural anthropologists, nor could science support a theory about the
past and future! It is a
theory that has evidence against it.
In
this section we will examine this theory and its implications and
criticisms.
Normative
Ethical Relativism
Here
is an example of the theory in this writing by Thane Doss of CUNY , Hunter
with the notation of the claims that constitute the theory of Normative
Ethical Relativism marked by an asterik *
At
any rate, the underpinning of all this is that I expect that we all have
the capacity and even some degree of recognition that ethics and morality
are social constructs*, and
that therefore, it's not "morality" or "ethics" that
one truly refers to in the about-to-shoot-someone situation. Generally, if
you've got time to think about it, you already know the position of
society on what you're about to do. If you're a soldier, your culture (or
someone who hired you, if you're a mercenary) sent you there to shoot
people, so you know you've got cultural backing*.
If you're a criminal, you also know your position, and you've made some
calculations based on likely personal gain, kicks, probability of getting
caught, etc. There really are no moral questions at play.*
If you're neither of these, it's likely that you're also not really free
to sit down for long to mull things over, so you react and hope that your
reaction fits within accepted norms *
of self-defense or defense of others as established by your
culture.*
What
underlies things is calculation of gain and loss, though, not some greater
thing to be named "morality." *
As an example, which may be faulty, I don't believe that dueling
was always illegal (it's here I could be wrong), though after a certain
point in time it was in this country, anyway. Why would there have been a
time when the situation of two hot-headed men (as far as I know, women
weren't involved in duels, though it'd be a neat book if one could find
some examples) choosing to try to murder one another would _not_ have been
illegal, as just a rotten thing to train the kids on and not a terribly
good way to perpetuate the species? Well, if the alternative is getting
all my buddies together to attack and try to kill all your buddies, then
as far as the culture and the personal well-being of a bunch of
individuals goes, saying "Hey, if you guys really want to risk your
lives and the likelihood that those pistols are going to blow up in your
own faces instead of firing accurately, go ahead and leave me out of
it" makes a lot of sense.
But
in time, there is enough rule of law about to, at least often, prevent the
whole "My buddies and I are going to kill you and your buddies"
thing in the first place, so allowing the duel is no longer a measure to
keep all the buddies alive, and it can be declared illegal as a
rotten way to bring your kids up, etc. Same action--different times,
different
"moralities"
[i.e. cultural considerations].*
Second,
shorter example--it would be horrible--"immoral"--to knowingly
kill an innocent man, wouldn't it? But there are anthropological reports
of the incredibly effective deterrence obtained by tribes that understood
that if a member of tribe A killed a member of tribe B, some member of
tribe A—any member except the killer--would be killed by tribe B. Every
member of both tribes has a direct investment in keeping any member of
his/her tribe from killing anyone in another tribe, because any member
could find
him/herself
to be the payback for the killing. There's not much killing around as a
result. As far as getting the results that people generally agree upon as
desirable goes, this is far preferable from our capital punishment system,
which makes killing _more_ attractive to those already to disposed to
murder and gives everyone else an incentive to just stay out of the way.
You may have to kill an innocent every now and then as a result of this
approach to justice, but you have to choose your basis for what you're
going to call morality--is it better to have less murder overall, but kill
an innocent every now and then, or is it better to have more murder
overall and only kill the guilty? (This is, of course,
the
argument that the pro-capital punishment people make, too, but they don't
look at the statistics and psychological studies to check their
assumptions about capital punishment as a deterrent.)
There
really is no good or evil,*
only what is human, and apparently among the things that is human is a
tendency to create abstractions and treat them as if they are concrete*
, when a bit of analysis really would show that the meanings of
those abstractions change considerably with time and place.* (As
long as this recognition of change is present, this is a very useful sort
of behavior--one might compare it to scientific modeling.)
Rohit
mentioned a million dogs a year being killed as an example a while back,
apparently expecting a purely emotional response. I prefer cats myself,
but have nothing really against dogs. Of course, I have nothing against
cows, either. But millions are killed yearly in this country, and yes, I
do eat some of them. I feel some guilt. I feel some
guilt
when I kill a cockroach, though. But the universe was not designed so that
I could absorb energy directly from a star. Even if I didn't eat animals,
plants would have to die to keep me going. It is unfortunate that life
depends on things dying, but it does. That is neither good nor evil,
though.* We don't call the cheetah evil for killing an antelope--we
call it a cheetah.
People
have more reasoning power, and indeed, they should apply their reasoning
to their killing, but to say that applying this thing called
"morality" to killing is truly reasoning is quite questionable.*
At best, it's like a small-angle approximation.
In
most cases, going with what you call morality will keep you safely within
the range of cultural acceptance for your specific time and place.*
But that's all that it really reflects--the cultural understandings that
formed it.
Thane Doss, BMCC/Hunter
=
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
Why
do people come to believe the normative ethical relativism?
Consider four reasons that may account for the phenomenon.
Factors
contributing to the popularity of the theory of Normative Ethical
Relativism
1.It
is obvious that moral rules and laws vary from country to country. Many
people believe that laws that exist for other people in other countries
should not apply to within their own country. Traditions and customs are
different around the world: what is wrong in one place might be right in
the other. So to some people it is true that there should not be a
universal moral standard binding on all men at all times.
2.
The decline of Religion in the Western Hemisphere and in advanced
technological societies. As
Nietzsche and Dostoevsky have noted, If god is dead than all is permitted.
3.
Increased sensitivity to peoples of different cultures and the need to
avoid the evils of ethnocenticism. The
desire to be tolerant and to appreciate the values and beauty of a
multi-cultural world.
4.
The failure for most people to think that there could be a third
alternative to moral absolutism (associated with religion) and cultural
relativism. Consider the
question: Are all moral duties binding on all people at all times or are
moral duties relative to culture? Few
can think of a third alternative to these two choices.
Finding absolutism untenable many simply accept the relativist
position.
Philosophers
have been attempting for centuries to develop that third alternative.
Consider
Socrates. He could not accept
the mythopoetic thought of his time as the basis for morality and neither
could he accept the relativism of Thrasymachus and other Sophists who
taught and proclaimed that might makes right and accident makes might.
The Sophists believed that each society makes its own rules and there are no universal rules, no gods ruling over all and making rules.
This
theory has become a very popular part of post modern times.
It is a theory that manifests its influences in many parts of the
culture. The theme of
tolerance and appreciation for other cultures and the inappropriateness of
applying one standard from one culture to actions in another culture is in
evidence in the arts and in politics.
EXAMPLE:
Shortly
after William Jefferson Clinton was first elected to the office of President
of the United States her was an election of a school board in a
Florida county.
The majority of the school board were now members of the Christian
Coalition, a conservative political action group.
The school board voted that all public schools in the county would
teach in all grades, as part of social studies, that the United States has
a culture superior to that of many others . This was to be supported by
the claims that the United States held the values of freedom and equality
most high, was a democracy and provided for the welfare of many in need
and a number of other claims. Both
President Clinton and his wife , Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the
school board for their intolerance. They
both proclaimed that the US does not have a superior culture but that all
cultures are equally valued and are to be equally respected.
These proclamations are affirmations of doctrines of the post
modern movement and are part of the set of "politically correct"
ideas currently popular. Nine
months after this event a young citizen of the United States was arrested
in Singapore for acts of vandalism. Michael
Fay confessed and was tried and found guilty and sentenced to a canning.
At that time many people in the USA were very upset with this
situation. President Clinton
wrote a letter to the president of Singapore and requested that the
sentence be changed. President
Clinton wrote that the act of caning was barbaric.
The president of Singapore was offended by the letter and upheld
the custom and laws of that land. How
could President Clinton declare another countries practices or any
countries practices as beng barbaric if he believed that all cultures are
equally praise worth. The
President was being inconsistent. He
also criticized the people of Chine, the government , for their barbaric
practices with regard to political and religious dissidents.
When he later ordered the bombing in Bosnia and one of the planes
bombed the Chinese embassy, several nations, including the Chinese, called
that act one of barbarism!
Three
years after the criticism of the Florida school board action, Hillary Clinton attended an international conference on women in China.
She represented the USA. At
that time she condemned the practices of China and India and a number of
other countries and used harsh language in doing so.
How was she able to do that if she believed that all cultures are
equal in value and no one can judge another?
She too was being inconsistent.
So,
Normative Ethical Relativism is part of the cultural milieu.
It is evidenced in the thinking of many and yet at the same time
many of those who espouse or accept this theory hold opposing views as
well!
There are several problems and criticisms of the theory of normative ethical relativism.
1. According to the theory there are no universal moral criteria, there
can be no absolutes not even that of tolerance. Therefore the supporters
of this theory cannot promote the theory with the claim that its
acceptance will support tolerance for peoples of other cultures because
tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. It is only a good thing in
those cultures where it is promoted. It cannot be promoted for all
peoples. If people are raised in a culture where it is thought to be a
good thing to be INTOLERANT, then that is what people should be. There
have been and there are cultures in which people are raised to believe
that they have a superior culture and a right to use and abuse other
people. So for that group of people tolerance is not a good thing.
Normative ethical relativism cannot be used to promote tolerance. It is a
poorly thought out and confused notion of tolerance that leads to the
theory of Normative Ethical Relativism.
2. According to the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism each culture
has its own ideas about ethics and morality. In each culture the
predominant view is correct because it is the predominant view. There are
no principles that could override or take precedence over the predominant
view. Thus there can be no criticism of the moral views held by the
majority of people in a given society by any minority. This is so because
the minority must always be wrong in virtue of the fact that it is the
minority view. The Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism cannot support
or explain criticisms of the majority’s views by minorities. Yet there
have been such criticisms and many have led to moral reforms. Such reform
cannot be accounted for by the theory.
3. If the theory applies to peoples of different cultures because they
are raised in different social environments then it applies as well to any
peoples raised apart form other peoples. So it would apply within a
culture and within a society wherever there are isolated groups. Indeed
the theory eventually supports a subjectivism in which each person raised
differently from others must make his or her own moral rules and those
rules are equal in value and importance as any other set of rules. In this
application of the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism no one has the
right to make moral judgments about another person, for each person has
the right to have his or her own morals.
4. The Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism runs counter to our
ordinary experiences and concept of morality. Even people who claim that
they believe that the Theory of Normative Ethical Relativism is correct do
make moral judgments concerning the practices of people in other cultures.
For example they do condemn female infanticide and genital mutilation and
a number of other practices, even practices that go back many centuries.
It appears quite evident that there are certain acts which ordinary people
simply regard as being morally wrong no matter who is committing them.
5. Although there may be variations amongst the various cultures on
this planet that does not mean that there are no points of agreement or
that there are no fundamental set of ethical principles that could be
common to all. Take for example the rather basic principle that there is a
right to life and so killing is wrong. now there may be societies that
permit the killing of a cheating spouse or of unwanted children at birth.
Still despite the differences there may be a common principle to the effect
that an unjustified killing is wrong. Then societies have differences over
what constitutes the justification for the deliberate termination of a
life but not over the basic rule that killing is orally wrong.
6. The fact that societies differ concerning their views of morality
and the principles upon which morality rests does not mean that there is
no possibility of there being a concept of the good that all humans could
come to recognize and accept. There is some support that it is the BRAIN
as the basis for morality.
Read
about the book and theory of
The
Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga. In
that book in the final, speculative section, ''The Nature of Moral
Beliefs and the Concept of Universal Ethics,'' Dr. Zanniga explores
whether there is ''an innate human moral sense.'' The theories of
evolutionary psychology point out, Gazzaniga notes, that ''moral reasoning
is good for human survival,'' and social science has concluded that human
societies almost universally share rules against incest and murder while
valuing family loyalty and truth telling. ''We must commit ourselves to
the view that a universal ethics is possible,'' he concludes. (Sally Satel,
NY Times 6-19-05)
7.
The theory is faulted and disproven and can not serve as an ethical theory
to be used to resolve moral conflicts. There is nothing that can be
universalized according to this theory.
We
do and should judge other individuals and societies with reason and with
sympathy and understanding. But
what is the basis for such judgment? What theory of morality do we use when we do this?
What are our ethical principles?
More on this in the succeeding sections.
********************************************************************
Resources:
The Truth in Ethical Relativism
by Hugh LaFollette
http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/RELATIVE.HTM
Wikipedia item
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
Catholic Refutation of Moral Relativism by Peer Kreeft
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9510
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
*********************************************************************
There are several manifestations of Normative Ethical
Relativism as part of the legacy of
Post Modernism in :
Existentialism
- - - -Pragmatism
- - - -Feminism
These will be examined in a later section.
turn to next section |