How might a moral relativist respond to the claim that people should always tell the truth? Assess the strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics.

Authors Avatar

Angela Cotton 12RFT

AS Religious Studies

  1. How might a moral relativist respond to the claim that people should always tell the truth?

  1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics.

(A)

To tell the truth is morally right, but telling a lie can also be morally right. Can the contradictions both be justified if the motive is love? Can we lie if the intention is love, or by always telling the truth are we “better people”? Some relativists claim that as long as the intention is love, then an action is morally right.

In a relationship, when the crucial moment arrives and your partner turns to you and says, “Do you love me?”, how best do you respond? Morally, can you justify lying to someone about love? The law of love says that you can not refrain from action. If refrain denies you from following a certain course, then can lying be accepted? Dependant upon whether you do love the person or not, the best approach to take will be a matter of your personal opinion and beliefs. Fletcher would deal with a situation relative to love. Relativism, “relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative”. If the absolute is such that, you should tell the truth because it is the loving thing to do, then relativism would say that, maybe saying “Yes, I do love you”, may be justifiable, but it may also cause the most pain in the long run. This relativist approach is held by consequentalists. The pain of turning to someone and saying, “No, I don’t love you”, may be initially hurtful, but it is done to bring about the best long-term result. A deontological approach would differ with this, and impart a belief that your answer would come from a pre-determined set of rules that you chose to live your life by. Here, there is no intention of harming or pleasing someone, as the consequences of your response would not factor into it.

Join now!

When responding to a situation, who has the right to justify whether the action was morally right? Is justification dependant upon love, motive, intention or belief? Where does love factor into a situation? If love is the determining factor behind a lie, is it therefore justified? Situation ethicists would say that love decides which actions are morally right. The circumstances of which an act is executed, decides upon the moral justification.   Responsibility appears to widen as the choice of outcome increases. By telling a lie, you therefore have to accept full responsibility for its consequences. Will this widening ...

This is a preview of the whole essay