Morality without religion
People are what they believe, what they eat, what norms, custom, and laws governing them, people are their culture. Morality refers to a set of principles or a system of conducts in a society that distinguish between right and wrong or bad and good behaviors. The morality of a society varies with the customs and the belief of the family (Buchanan 6). Therefore, ethical relativism is one of the philosophical theories that assert that the vindication of morality is relative to one’s culture, the fact that whether an action or value is morally upright is dependent on the norm of the society the action is being practiced. Furthermore, the action proven as morally upright in one society can be proven as wrong or right with another. Therefore, this underscores a critical discussion on the theory of ethical relativity according to pojman.
The philosophy around the whole issue of ethical relativism is the fact that all viewpoint are equally valid. The determination of what is real and valid is dependent on the individuals understanding and belief. The theory of relativism ascertains that what is true varies from what person to another. However, it is also true to say that, although truth varies from one culture to the next, some common values and principle systems cut across the cultures and ethnical groups in the world (Mazzoni 26). Since this philosophy refuses status quo, and that it allows the change and evolution of social and moral values respectively, then the most concrete and immediate example to affirm this is the slavery (Buchanan 25). The realization of change and evolution as stated in this theory because of societal change engineered by technological advancement and increase in knowledge. Slavery becomes a good example here because the value of the life of all human beings is recognized the world over. Some actions and values are believed all across the earth because all people are equal and have common social preferences, experience, and rules that bring to benefits.
Cultural relativism explains the plain fact that in the world there exist various distinct culture and that each culture has their unique way of thinking, behavior and feeling as the member learn from previous experience with their predecessors. Some of the concrete proofs articulated to this view include the fact that people eat differently, dress differently, and speak different languages, have different dances and music, different songs and customs (Jhingran 36).
In addition, normative ethical relativism is yet another theory for the concept of relativism that posits that universally valid morals or system of principles do not exist. The theory also stands in for the fact that morally wrongness or rightness of a practice or an action is relative and dependent. Although the theory is not supported by any scientific or cultural anthropological research, the theory’s central claim is that people's thinking about basic principles of morality what is referred to as ethnic differs from one group to another and this will remain and not change year in year out.
In conventional ethical relativism, culture in the supreme authority, it dictates what is considered the moral truth to an individual. It supports the notion that one’s belief and understanding of moral principle is determined the culture from which the person comes from. Conventional ethical relativism places the culture of a social at the core of the whole issue of morality without religion.
An anthropologist has pointed out that some practices that are considered as good and morally accepted in some societies but poorly unaccepted or condemned in other societies include the following. They include practices such as polygamy, sexism, torture, and infanticide. Therefore, this fact support the view or the philosophy of ethical relativism
On the other hand, many critics have been cited against this theory as the majority of ethicists reject the argument. Other philosophers and critics posit that practices regarded as morally upright may vary from one society to another, but the basic underpinning principles that underlay the action do not change. For instance in some culture killing one parent when they attain a certain age was rampant based on the belief that people were in well place the peace of mind and more appropriate for their afterlife when they were still physically vigorous and active.
Although the practice may seem grievous and unbearable to anther society may be based other belief and customs one thing is agreeable. It is clear that society A considered the death of their parent at an early stage while still physically active appropriate because of the underlying fact of care for a parent or the elderly. Therefore, the main concept that is underpinning in this story is the fact that societies may differ in how they carry out to apply their beliefs and feelings but the basic moral principle is the same (Jhingran 22).
Additionally, it is argued that, the fact that some practice being relative to a particular does not make all the other practices relative. Practices such as norms regarding decency and dress may be localized to a given custom since they are dictated by people thoughts and belief. Conversely, other practices such as political repression, torture, and slavery may be judged wrong universally despite the different beliefs that exist among the many different cultures.
Other philosophers claim that if the wrongness or rightness of an action or practice is governed by the norm and customs of society, therefore, it implies that the members of that society are prisoners to the custom (Mazzoni 45). They continue to say that this kind of a scenario enhances social conformity whereas it eliminates moral opinions and social consensus. For instance, in society, people may differ ideologically on what is wrong or right a good example being the lack of social consensus on the topic of abortion.
Most importantly, from what seems to be the strongest critic of ethical relativism is that universal moral standards exist regardless of the difference in the beliefs and moral practices among culture. Meaning, people can still leave to acknowledge the presence, the different beliefs, culture, and their influence and again acknowledge that practices are morally wrong.
Attitudes and arguments were given by Pojman
The philosopher Luis pojma addresses the question of wrongness and rightness in three distinct categories namely, positive morality, moral philosophy and moral ethics. He posits that positive morality is a great and actual constraint to behavior whereas, ethics is combined domain of moral philosophy and positive morality. He explains the moral philosophy as the systematic theoretical reflection on the set of principles that dictates what is right or wrong.
Profoundly, pojman illustrates his point widely by relating his notion of law and governance. He claims that for any prior understanding regarding any authority there will be an agreement over the same if the people that authority depending on their reasons. Meaning people are not always ready to follow precepts or norms due to the mere the fact that they are rules but because of the compelling reasons, they articulate to the same. He criticizes the ethical relativism by saying that the belief that law and morality are connected is necessarily wrong since the two cannot be identical.
Coincidentally, he gives an example of modern day laws of driving in Canada and argues that many practices that are enforced by the law are matters of indifference morally hence coordination problem as a result of the law requirement does not favor etiquette. Luis in most of his argument he refers to the norms and customs of the society as law since on the viewpoint of ethical relativism the customs dictates people morals. Moreover, he asserts that some practices inscribed in the law are literally immoral and he gave an example of the slavery and forced sterilization of the disabled. He also ascertains that the norms and customs that govern people may have conflicting moral and legal duties. In this case, the subjects of a particular cultural group may defy the norm based on social consensus or difference in moral opinions.
Personal argument
Personally, my take on this discussion would be very negative on ethical relativism stating that morality is determined the by the people norms and culture. It is true that people across the globe have cultural differences as specified by the many anthropologists and that this difference makes societies have different perspectives and views on issues. It may also be true that due to this difference such as differences in language, dressing and decency, music and dances, foods and customs and even in beliefs.
However, due to the equality of human beings regardless of race or language or tribe, we share many things. Some of these things are natural, and they include emotions, feelings, thinking, and experiences. These unifying factors make us feel and think the same way and hence force to have similar or agreeing viewpoints in some weighty matters for instance slavery, and care. People may resort to different ways to carry out certain things due to different ideology and reasoning but the motive behind the action what is referred to as the basic moral principle is the same (Mazzoni 63). Therefore, something might be considered wrong with a particular ethnic group, but that does not hinder the same thing to be considered wrong universally hence this is the strongest critic of the philosophy of ethical relativism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, different cultures have their different ways of doing thing based on their cultural customs and beliefs. The morality of a practice id dictated by what a particular ethnic group wrong or right. Moreover, any action or practice or a fact is only considered true if it is within the confines of the community’s customs and norms. Thus, this is what the theory of ethical relativism states. Nonetheless, the theory has faced a lot of critics from different philosophers such as Luis pojman saying that the fact that a practice or an action is considered wrong by an individual ethnic does not hinder the same practice to be declared wrong universally since basic principle applies to all people.
Work cited
Buchanan, Elizabeth A. Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: and Controversies. Hershey, Pa. [u.a.: Information Science Publ, 2004. Print.
Jhingran, Saral. Ethical Relativism and Universalism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2001. Print.
Mazzoni, John. Ethics: The Basics. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.
Ochieng'-Odhiambo, F. Foundations of Ethics: A Critical Reader in Moral and Social Philosophy. Nairobi: University of Nairobi Press, 2009. Print.
Pojman, Louis P. How Should We Live: An Introduction to Ethics. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2005. Print.
Sobel, Jordan H. Walls, and Vaults: A Natural Science of Morals (Virtue Ethics According to David Hume). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Internet resource.
