Is morality relative or are there objective moral truths?

Introduction

The society is haunted by the question of whether morality is fundamentally relative or there are moral truths that are objective.  The argument for relativism by Benedicts views modern culture as not being the culmination of human achievements but as   continuously evolving. Subjectivism and conventionalism also tries to explain the question moral truths in a society.

Concerning Benedict’s paper

 Benedicts is right in saying that the modern culture and civilization being just a part of long series of potential adjustments. This means that the modern culture is not a culmination of the best achievements that humans can gain but it shows that culture will keep evolving as it has happened before.  The changes in culture are informed by human experience, the need to identify with nature for different reasons for social sanctity and social good. In the same light, human experiences and nature is shaped by their surrounding at a particular moment and it is through this that moral values are developed and upheld in a given society (Benedict, 2000). This implies that human culture is never static but undergoes evolution in terms of what is moral or immoral which is then ingrained in the system. The moral codes will also change with change in different periods and under different circumstances and those humans who will have different traits from the selected human behavior in the community are considered as being deviant.

It is not possible to separate the descriptive aspect of anthropological study from the prescriptive evaluation of cultures. This is because the descriptive studying of anthropology helps evaluating the various cultures and why they exist.  The combination of the two is necessary in studying the humans through a descriptive view which will help in understanding the different culture, values and morals existing in a given community. Whether some cultures are better than others depends on the outcomes of the cultures and how they affect the human. Even though human behavior, morals and values are informed by their surrounding, there are various types that are found widely and are likely universal. There is a type of human behavior which can be found where there is big series of people and many people in a group are fashioned to a given culture (Fieser, n.d). This means that may exist which shows the universally accepted behavior can be found in a given culture but lacking in another culture. Rating of the culture may happen if a culture is considered devoid of the universally accepted principles in wide groups of people.

The notion by Benedict that morality refers to whatever is considered normal by a culture may have various ethical implications.  While there may be differences in the moral practices of various societies, the basic moral principles on which the practices are not different. It may be that morals are relative in regard to cultures but in all the societies there underlying principle of these morals cannot be condemned. Even though some things that are considered abnormal in one culture may function in another culture, there are some principles such as the sanctity of human life are held widely despite the divergence (In addition, if the wrongness or rightness of a given action is dependent on the norms of the society, it follows that one has to obey these norms even if they believe that an action is immoral (Benedict, 2000). In the case of ant-Semitism policy of the Nazi, the principle by Benedict is wrong since protection of human life is held as a universal moral principle and can mean. In this case, morality extends beyond what a group may consider tight to what is right for entire society.

The quotation by Benedict tends to articulate the fact that what we deem wrong or right is informed by the habits that have been held traditionally in the society. This means that whatever we see as being abnormal to other unfamiliar cultures only because our society has conditioned them as being so, whereas in other societies, they function normally (Pojman, 1994). This means that morality is conditioned by various aspects of the culture such as religious values. Outside such factors, what is considered abnormal could be perceived to be quite normal were it not for that elaboration? This implies that morality values cannot be considered universal in all societies because the very cultures different. There can never be instances where the fundamental moral principle which accepted in all the societies since beliefs are different and these beliefs shape the perception of an individual (Fieser, n.d). Abnormalities work at ease in some cultures but not with similar ease in other cultures.

Concerning Pojman’s paper

The thinking by Pojman that most American students are moral relativist is correct, which is not surprising given that people have divergent views on culture and behavior. This assertion can be supported by the view among most students that what is right for one person may not be right for the other person. To them, the ethical framework is en vogue especially in the atmosphere of learning institutions. To most students, morality is a personal judgment given that most students make morality to appear like a useless idea.  People at this stage believe that rebuking a mistake is being judgmental and hypocrite and it is not for condemning a person if you are doing what they do as long is not affecting others (Pojman , 1994).  Hence, a moral code is only meaningful to a person who embraces. This is because, people come from different cultures that hold different systems of moral belief and relativistic perception of morality. In this case, the existence moralities that are diverse blush aside the notion that there can be single criteria of true morality.  The relativism is driven by the need to promote tolerance and by encouraging humility among people from different backgrounds.

 The subjective ethical relativism involves a consideration that morality depends on an individual and not the society so that an individual determines whether an action is right or wrong.  In addition, the idea of good or bad is does not have an evaluative meaning that is interpersonal (Pojman, 1994).  The personal view of the morality is informed by the various facts that were instilled in families and communities that are mutually dependent. However, conventionalism holds the perception that there is no moral principle that is objective but all moral principles that are valid are also justified since they are culturally accepted and hence social aspect of morality is recognized. Unlike subjectivism, morality is not defined by a personal view but it is relative to the prevailing culture.   The individuals have an obligation to be tolerant (Pojman, 1994).

The view that morality of every culture is good may not be always true since there are some cultures that fail to adhere to the principles behind all the moralities.  On the other hand, the moral principles in some cultures may fail to promote or enhance human interests and hence, fail to meet the human needs.  Moralities should be upheld as functions of human interest and needs and should ensure that the most significance needs and interests are addressed (Pojman, 1994). In this sense, morality of a culture that does not meet the fundamental needs and interests optimally should not be upheld.  The morals of a given culture should therefore be objective so that they can be acceptable to all cultures since they do not harm humans or fail to address to their interests. Morals should be that they appeal to an ideal observer and with conditions whose effects are impartiality and which ensure that humans are provided with a good chance of making appropriate decisions (Fieser, n.d). Some cultures may involve practices do not address human needs.

Moral relativism may have a bad impact on the society in case where moral wrongs are taken to be acceptable. If it can be said that one’s actions and believes are wrong or right only in relation to a given moral benchmark, people may end up justifying almost any action. In the conversation with his victim, Ted Bundy defends his actions on the basis of moral subjectivism and that respecting the rights of other people was a great obstacle to his freedom.  A response to Ted Bundy by a relativist would include mostly refuting his reasons for the actions since relativism has boundaries such as those put in place by a culture at a time. In this case, raping and murder are against culture norms.

Conclusion

The objectivity of moral values is perceived in the sense that such values are beyond human conventions that are subjective. Moralities should uphold human need and interest as a basic principle in all the cultures.

Reference