Ethics- Introduction
Ethical Relativism
and Ethical Absolutism
Reasons
In Support of Relativism
Problems
With Ethical Relativism
Ethics, you will recall, is that branch of Philosophy,
which seeks to answer questions about right human conduct. In this introductory lecture we will be
examining types of ethical theories as well as the meta-ethical dispute between
Ethical Relativism and Ethical Absolutism.
Ethics ‑ trying to decide what to do. Necessarily ACTION GUIDING.
Deals with questions like:
·
What is right or
wrong; good or bad?
·
What should I do or
not do?
·
What kind of life
should I lead or avoid?
Sometimes called the practical philosophy, Ethics
deals with practice, choosing what you are going to do or should do on the basis of reason, but more specifically, on the basis
of moral
reason. When you wake-up in the morning
it the first question that you must ask and answer, “What shall I choose to do
today.”
An ethical theory will tell you what you what you ought
to do. A Meta-ethical theory is a theory about ethical theories or the
nature of ethics in general. I want to
turn now to two meta-ethical positions: (1) Types of Ethical Theories and (2)
The Dispute Between Ethical Relativism and Ethical Absolutism.
BTW: I do not
distinguish between “Ethics” and “Morality.”
I treat these and their related terms as synonymous.
Virtue Ethics: a category of
ethical theories which see actions as right or wrong depending on whether or
not they are conducive to or flow from a good character;
Sometimes referred to as "Hero Ethics"
If familiar with mythology, most mythologies utilize the
notion of “the hero.” And that hero
embodies everything which that society admires or esteems. Virtue ethics works
by asking, “What would the hero do in this situation?” Or, if contemplating an
action, one might ask, “Would the hero do this or avoid it?” If the hero would do it, then you have moral
reason to do it. If the hero
would avoid it, then you have moral reason to avoid it.
Additionally you might ask, “Would this act make me like
the hero or not? The is, is this action conducive
to the formation of an good/heroic character?” One should
act in ways that are conducive to or flow from a good character, an ideal
person. One should avoid the things that are counterproductive to the formation
of a good character.
Christianity can be viewed as an example of a Religious Virtue Ethics (though not,
strictly speaking, a philosophical ethical theory). According to this view,
Jesus is the ideal and we ought to be
Jesus‑like, to do things that will help us be more Jesus-like and,
generally, to do what Jesus would do.
What makes this religious and not philosophical/secular is that it rests
on faith
that Jesus is Divine.[1]
Virtue Ethics do not set a minimal standard below which
one must not sink, but rather they set an ideal goal and make judgements
relative to how close one approximates the ideal. The moral imperative from this perspective is
not “Don’t break the rule!” but rather “Strive for excellence!”
Virtue Ethics is very often employed in professional
ethics (medical ethics- “how would an ideal doctor behave?”, or legal
ethics- “how would an ideal lawyer behave?”, “what constitutes ‘action
unbecoming a justice?’” Also, Virtue
Ethics concepts are often used to evaluate entire societies. Opponents of capital punishment sometimes
point out that the
Problems:
Keep in mind that while this may be a weakness when trying
to use virtue ethics to prescribe behavior for
others, it is a moot point when assessing one’s own behavior on the basis of virtue (powerful when using personal
convictions). It is an excellent way of
looking at your life and seeing if you are living your own life according to your own values.
4. Even should such standards exist and be justified, they will still only provide vague guidance as to specific behavior.
Imagine that I was tasked with giving you practical advice on how you should drive your car. One cannot very well know how one should drive one’s car merely by being told, “Well... be courteous, kind, forthright, etc.” Often, we need specific action guiding rules. (e.g. “Drive on the right side of the road.”)
Example: Aristotle He is a virtue Ethicist who attempts to answer these questions.
Consequentialist Ethics: a category of
ethical theories which see actions as right or wrong depending on whether or not they have good consequences.
If the action in question has good consequences,
then you have moral reason to perform it. If it has bad consequences, then you
have moral reason to refrain from performing the actions.
Problems:
1. What are “good consequences?”
Pleasure, Knowledge, Freedom, Security, Happiness- these are
all different good consequences, but
in some cases they are incompatible. Sometimes
to give you the truth, I have to tell you something
painful. Alternatively, in order to provide you with security, I might have to reduce
your liberty. Which of these competing
“good consequences,” if any, should we try to maximize and why? When they conflict, which is more important
and why? And does any answer to that
question presume a NON-consequential means of moral
evaluation?
2. Consequences to whom or what? (Myself alone? Everyone? Animals? The Environment? Possible but non-actual Future Generations?)
3. What about when getting good consequences requires violating rights, duties or other obligations?
Examples: Epicurus, Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill. They are all consequencialists and attempt to answer these questions.
3.
Deontological Ethics[2]
Deontological
Ethics: a category of ethical theories which
see actions as right or wrong depending on whether or not
they accord with correct moral rules. If
a moral rule prohibits a particular action, then you have moral reason
to refrain from doing it. If a moral
rule requires a particular action, then you have moral reason to perform
it. And if no moral rule neither requires nor prohibits a particular
action, then you may you do it if you wish, but If you
would prefer not to, you may refrain from doing it. In this case, it would appear not to be a
moral issue at all.
Here the moral primitive is “Rule.” (Christianity can also be looked at as a
religious deontological ethical system- offered faith-based moral rules to follow: i.e. 10 Commandments.) The basic idea is, keep the rules and you are
doing what is right; break the rules and you are doing what is wrong.
Remember that the concept of a rule can also be expressed
through words like “Rights, Duties,
Obligations, Responsibilities, Forbidden, Permitted.[3]” Anytime one talks about rights, one is saying
that there are certain moral rules governing the behavior. (I have a “right to property” = “The rule is
YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE MY STUFF!”) Universal
Human Rights suggest that all humans must be treated in certain rule-governed
ways. If not, one is doing something
wrong.
Anytime one is talking about rights, duties
or obligations you are talking in deontological terms.
Problems:
1. What are the moral rules?
2. Where do these rules come from?
3. How do we come to know the rules?
4. The view seems to presume that ethics can be spelled out entirely in terms of rules. But some question whether ethics can really be spelled out in terms of specific rules. They contend that it is impossible to legislate or articulate certain rules that are going to cover all real and possible moral issues.
“Well honey, technically I wasn’t cheating because we were just corresponding on
the internet and I never actually touched her or had
intercourse with her...”
Also, this approach to ethics runs the danger of
legalism.
Legalism- an obsession with
the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law. Certain religions have a
tendency toward legalism (tell you exactly you must be done in certain
situations).
Examples: Immanuel
Kant, W.D. Ross; They are all deontologists and attempt to answer these
questions.
We tend to argue using all three positions.
Where these points of view converge, we have vast
agreement in ethics. Moral controversy
happens most often when these viewpoints diverge. (i.e. The action looks good from one
perspective but bad from another.) The
claim that there is no widespread agreement in ethics is a myth supported by
biased observation. Our attention is drawn to controversy, not to agreement.
We will be looking at Theorists/Purists. Each advocates only one
particular point of view.
Aristotle- Virtue
Epicurus, J. Bentham and J.S.
Mill- Consequences
Immanuel Kant- Moral Rules
Ethical Relativism‑ is a theory which states there are no absolute principles by which to
adjudicate (decide between) competing ethical systems.
Ethical Absolutism – is a theory which states that there are absolute principles by which to
adjudicate competing ethical systems.
NB: Do not confuse the Meta-Ethical theory Ethical Relativism with the descriptive
(Anthropological theory) Cultural
Relativism.
Cultural Relativism: the view that different cultures have different ethical systems.
Exposition of Ethical Relativism
First some Non-ethical
examples of systems of “relative” judgements:
In order to get a handle on what ethical relativism commits one to,
I think it's helpful to think about other systems of relative judgments. For
instance, I think it's appropriate to think of fashion judgments as judgments
which occur within systems and are true or false relative to the societies
which generate and maintain these systems of fashion. For instance, there is such a thing as “fashion truth.” Some things are fashionable
and some are not, and if you care about being fashionable, you need to go out
and find out what the fashion standards are.
So there is a “fashion truth” independent of what any single individual
has to say about it. Note then That relativism
is NOT subjectivism.
But this “truth” depends on time, place
and culture. X is fashionable for them
there then. Or Y is unfashionable for us here now. When one claims the “X is fashionable.” one
must always complete the thought (consciously or unconsciously) “...relative to
Y.” And what is fashionable relative to
1980’s
We can likewise think of rules of etiquette and legal
rules as systems of relative judgements.
Again, some things are polite, and some things are rude. And if you care about being polite and wish
to avoid being rude, you have to find out what the
etiquette rules are and conform your behavior
accordingly. They exist independent of
the individual. But judgments of
politeness or rudeness are always relative to some societal standards. One would have to say” X is rude… for them
there then.” or “Y is polite …for us here now.” etc. Nothing is absolutely polite or absolutely
rude, nor is anything absolutely fashionable or absolutely unfashionable. Not
even the little black dress 😊.
What
relativism is NOT saying:
1.
Nothing is really fashionable.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Of course some things are fashionable, and others are not. Just ask Elle or GQ.
2.
What’s fashionable for me may not be fashionable for you.
No. If we belong
to the same group, then the same fashion rules apply to us both.
3. Well, even though everyone else claims that
this is not fashionable, it’s fashionable FOR ME.
No. Fashion
doesn’t work that way. One misuses the
term to think otherwise. I cannot make
something fashionable by sheer force of will or preference. (see above). Maybe you mean “I don’t care about fashion.”
Or “I like to fly in the face of fashion.” but that’s not the same thing and
doesn’t change the fact that if everyone in my group says “X” is not
fashionable.” then X is not fashionable for me either. So, if I DO CARE about being fashionable,
then I have to find out what the fashion rules are for
the group I belong to (independent of my individual likes or dislikes) and
follow them.
Now, if I were to ask “Well I know that in the 80’s
those jackets were considered fashionable, and today we do not consider them fashionable,
but I want do know, who’s right? Are they REALLY fashionable or not?” the
Fashion Relativist would respond, “What a silly question.”
They really are
fashionable for the 80’s (not just “considered”) and they really are unfashionable for us (not just “considered”). And there
are no absolute standards by which to adjudicate competing fashion systems. All fashion judgments must be made relative
to some “Y.” You can never say “X is
fashionable” full stop.
The ethical relativist believes that ethics is just like
fashion in this respect. Ethical Rules,
etc. are created by society and only
have jurisdiction for the society which created them. Further, there
are no absolute principles to determine what is right and wrong. There are such things as moral truths, but
they are relative, depend on time, place
and culture. X is ethical, but only
relative to some Y.
Now if you asked how in fact did these rules (fashion
rules/ ethical rules) get created, well no doubt it would be an interesting
investigation and we might have to do sociology, psychology, economics,
marketing, pop culture studies, etc. to answer these questions. But we need not do that investigation to know
what happens to be fashionable/ ethical for a society.
The relativist does not say that one makes up the rules oneself.
If one cares about being ethical, one must find out what the rules are and abide
by the rules of the society, and one is bound by the
same rules as others in that culture.
Reasons
in support of Ethical Relativism:
1. Widespread moral disagreement. No universally accepted way of resolving such
disagreements.
2. Avoids Ethnocentrism.
Ethnocentrism: the unjustified
use of your one ethnic group’s standards as the objective standards by which to judge others for no other
reason than that they are one’s own. On
this view, all other cultures are judged to be advanced or primitive, civilized
or savage, moral or immoral depending on how closely they approximate one’s own
culture.
3. Avoids imperialism
Imperialism: the practice of
one culture imposing its values, traditions, practices, etc. on another by
force and coercion.
Traditional Philosophical Ethical Theories have been absolutist ‑ what is right is right regardless of
culture.
Western colonizing cultures have often been
imperialistic, trying to replace the native views, practices, customs, etc.
that they encountered with their own because they believed that it was their responsibility
job educate and civilize the native people.
This view is very much out of fashion today. During the 20th Century, groundbreaking
work was done in Anthropology. Margaret
Mead studied natives in Somoa; her work (now somewhat
suspect) caused a big stir because, according to her findings, the Samoans had
very relaxed views towards sex. This
contrasted sharply with the sexual mores of Americans in the 1950s. In addition
to her empirical findings, she also advanced the philosophical/meta-ethical
view that no culture’s morals are morally superior to any others because there are no absolute principles which
to adjudicate competing ethical systems. The proper/enlightened (cosmopolitan) thing
to do, therefore, is to leave them alone and not to try to change them; accept
their cultural beliefs and accept that they are different.
The view is NOT really that new
however. It goes back at least as far as
the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras of Abdera (c. 485-415 b.c.), who claimed
that “Man is the Measure of all things.”[4]
Problems
with Ethical Relativism:
1.
If true we could
not criticize cross culturally.
But what if they are doing things that inhumane (i.e.,
Nazi's)? True relativists would say that cannot say that the Nazi's ought not
to have acted as they did since according to their moral system, they were
justified. The most a relativist could
say would be, ‘Well, that would be considered wrong in our culture.” But this is an impossibly pale response to a
moral outrage?
2.
If true could not
criticize intra-culturally.
But what if the majority of the
culture believes Slavery is permissible?
Moral reformers claimed that the majority was wrong and pointed to a
“higher standard” to make their moral criticisms of their culture’s
practices. But this is precisely what
relativism denies. i.e. the existence of such higher standards. Note that if the majority
of your culture claim X is fashionable, and you disagree, you
are the one who is mistaken. On a
similar view of ethics, it would be the moral reformers who are making the incorrect moral judgements.
3.
If true we could
not make sense of the notion of moral progress.
If relativism is true, we cannot say that we are progressing
just changing. Progress entails the idea
of moving towards a goal, not merely evolving.
Fashion doesn’t “progress” in the strict sense. If bellbottoms jeans came back in style this
would not be “fashion regress” such that we’re “less fashionable” than we used
to be. However, if institutionalized
slavery ever “came back” this would be moral regress. (We would be less moral
than we used to be.)
4.
One seemingly
cannot support the notion of Universal
Human Rights and be a relativist.
5.
If one were
committed to the position that Imperialism is (always) wrong and goes on to say
that it was wrong when the Romans did it, The British, The Spanish, The Incas,
The Aztecs, The Chinese, the Mongols the Japanese, etc., one is acting as an Ethical
Absolutist, not as an Ethical Relativist.
So note, Absolutism does not entail Imperialism, nor does it entail Ethnocentrism. Indeed, one can oppose both
of these positions, and oppose them “Absolutely” only AS an Absolutist.
6.
What do you mean
by “culture?” – Are we now members of a global culture and therefore there
should be some global moral laws or standards; are we members of
sub-cultures? What if my sub-culture
says “X” and the dominant culture says “~X”?
It is not clear what one means by culture or how to define it?
Ethical Relativist claims that ethical rules arise from
culture. We literally dream this stuff
up. (Ethics:
Inventing Right and Wrong)
Ethical Absolutist claims that ethical rules are like
science. There is an objectivity to ethics and that, like science, there are
ethical facts which we discover and about which entire cultures can be wrong.
(Ethics:
Discovering Right and Wrong)
1. What are these supposed absolute standards?
2. How do you know that you are not just favoring your
own ethnic preferences, but acting as if it were the ultimate standards
(Ethnocentrism).
[1] Some Christians and Christian theologians may take issue with what I am saying here. While I do not think they would take issue with the idea that Jesus is held up to be the perfect example, they would take issue with the notion that Jesus is merely held up to be the perfect example. This view overlooks the key tenet of orthodox Christianity, that Jesus is divine, that is, He is God, and not merely to be imitated, but principally to be obeyed. This is another feature which distinguishes Christianity as a religious ethic and not a philosophical one.
[2] From the Greek word for duty: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study of')
[3] It is a further question about whether these moral “rules” differ in scope and importance or not. For instance, Kant maintains that there is an important difference between Prefect Duties, which correspond to rights, and Imperfect Duties, which do not correspond to rights. W. D. Ross argues that “prima facie” duties have a different significance than do actual duties.
[4] Ancient sources report that this sentence, or something very close, opened his work Truth, a public declamation with which he presented himself to the public to potential pupils.