Christian churches are absolutist. They preach commandments such as ‘Do not steal’, but if an underprivileged man with no money had to feed his starving family surely it would not be considered ‘wrong’ to steal from a rich business man to feed them? Kant believes that it should be possible to apply rules of absolutism to everyone, without making allowances for different people in special circumstances.
Absolutists do not change their opinions according to culture either. In a culture where there is a shortage of men due to war and widows receive no support from society, it might be judged by an absolutist wrong for any man who can afford to do so, to take one of these widows as additional wives and support them. Polygamy is considered by the absolutist as wrong as it is ‘wrong’ to commit adultery; however the moral relativist would look at the situation subjectively and come to the conclusion that all benefit from this decision and so it must be ‘right’.
Relativism includes the characteristics that are used in moral relativism. It states that all perceptions of situations are different and what is true for one person is not true for the other but at the same time the both are right. This is due to people’s different opinions that are often influenced by the culture that they live in or the religion that they have been taught to follow. Cultural relativism is the approach which tries to make people understand that different cultures practice different traditions and that someone from another culture or religion should not judge those traditions or call the influences of those traditions on their decisions wrong. We should respect other cultures customs. However in cases such as the Al Quada in Afghanistan their culture believes that it is right to kill capitalist Americans-should relativists respect their beliefs? Or if a culture endorses torturing innocent people-should we accept this without debating whether it is ‘right’? Even within cultures and communities there are differences of opinion. For example the Catholic Church believes it is wrong to have sexual intercourse unless it is for reproduction, but many devout Catholics use contraception, showing that conflict can arise even within communities.
Joseph Fletcher was a relativist who suggested that the right moral behaviour can be different for different people, according to the circumstances in which they find themselves. In his article “situation ethics” Fletcher challenged the theory of rule keeping and said that the situation itself was the most important consideration when making a moral decision. Situation ethics does not follow any kind of absolute moral code and looks at situations subjectively and objectively to draw a suitable conclusion. ‘Anapaestic calculus’ is the method of judging a situation and coming to the conclusion that is the most loving one and benefits the most people.
Fletcher says that there need to be rules but these are not universal and do not need to be adhered to completely but should only be used as guidance. Another relativist Paul Tillich agreed with this and also suggests that there is something higher than the morality of obeying rules and it is the striving to this ultimate concern that makes and action right.
Fletcher tells us that nothing in itself is good apart from love. Directly opposing absolutism he says that no actions in themselves are wrong it is their results that make them wrong and it is love that decides the good results from the bad. This love is known as ‘Agape’ and is a self giving love for all. It is unconditional and will always do the best for the most, this is known as pragmatism. Fletcher says that love and justice are the same-justice is love at work in society.
Moral relativists do not always share the same view; this is due to them all coming from different backgrounds and cultures. What is right and wrong differs from culture to culture but also from time to time, for example in English in the past it was believed that homosexuality was unacceptable and homosexual relations were ‘wrong’ whereas in modern day there are few objections to homosexuals. If people have different moral beliefs there is no way of proving that one is right and the other is wrong, so people must respect their way of living without calling their practices or traditions ‘wrong’.
We do not know if our moral standards have been shaped by the societies that we live in, or if the rules we have made have shaped our societies. J.L. Mackie a relativist, maintains that values, the good, rightness and wrongness, are not part of the fabric of our world. They do not exist. He sees the existence of diverse ethical values expressed in different times and cultures as evidence that no moral absolute exists. He argues that our moral beliefs do not seem to shape the societies that we live in; it is the other way round, where our morality is shaped because of our society.
Situation ethics allows people to make their own decisions and use their freedom of choice to do so. It explains why there are different views and opinions across the world; it supports diverse cultural expressions and prohibits the dominance of one single culture. However some of the views held by certain cultures are unacceptable to the rest of the world for example the Nazi’s regime, and could be looked upon even by a relativist as wrong. However cultural relativists are unable to criticize other cultures and only say that it is not right for them. Absolutism would be able to clear away these arguments by providing fixed ethical codes by which all actions are measured. The world would be able to live under the same set of rules and there would be clear guidelines of behaviour. However the circumstance of a decision is very important and so the absolute rules should be taken into account and used as a vague guideline when making a relativist decision.