There are many different examples of moral systems most are relativists but in different ways.
Situation ethics is the theory that the right moral behaviour can be different for different people, according to the circumstances in which they find themselves. Situation ethics is also to encourage people to behave as adults and to use their own common sense when making moral decisions. Dietrich Bonhoeffer emphasised the importance of individual choice. People were looking for greater autonomy during the 20th century, so when Joseph Fletcher published his book ‘Situation ethics’ he was putting in words the mood at the time. He wrote form a Christian point of view and believed that morality should be based on the rule of agape, and not the Ten Commandments. He stated that the right choice is not always the same, but that it depends on the circumstance, and that the right thing to do, should be the most loving thing to do.
Situation ethics has many advantages including; the fact that it allows people to take responsibility for their own decision making and encourages them to use their freedom of choice. It also provides a way in which Christians can make decisions about issues not associated with the bible, and accepts that the right thing to do should be based on the most loving choice.
There are however also many criticisms of situation ethics; it gives some people too much responsibility, which they cannot cope with. It also expects too much of people. It may also sometimes go against what the bible states.
Social contract theory which looks at how morality is based on the needs of society and that there is no absolute right or wrong, or an outside law giver. Thomas Hobbes who believed in this theory, argue that right and wrong are determined by the need for people to ignore their naturally selfish desires and work in the interests of the group. They determine right and wrong by looking at what is necessary to reduce conflict.
Utilitarianism is another moral system proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill it looks at how there is no ultimate or absolute goodness but find a course of action that will please the majority. They believe that good is ‘the greatest amount of happiness, for the greatest number’.
b) ‘Moral Relativism is an unacceptable ethical theory’. Discuss. (17)
There are many problems with Moral Relativism, in which many would say that it is an unacceptable ethical theory. For example, many argue that moral relativism just simply saying that different actions are right in different situations, and that there is not necessarily a definite right or wrong in every situation. If we used these moral relativist theories as a guide then surely according to some people, there would never be a wrong and people would get away will killing people, stealing and committing any crime because that could be the right thing to do in their eyes, but we all know that it is wrong.
Many would argue that the Natural law is a more acceptable ethical theory, as it is an absolute deontological view of morality. Natural law enables people to establish common rules in order to structure communities. Natural law goes beyond any religion or culture and works in the same way for every nationality. Natural law lays down rules that many people need to be able to walk in the right direction throughout life. Without these rules many people would not have any idea and would not be able to work out what is right from what is wrong. Natural law isn’t simply just a set of rules, but a way of living.
However many people would say that moral relativism give people freedom of choice and there are no set of rules for right and wrong, but the right and wrong depends on the circumstances religion and culture. Situation ethics encourages people to think for themselves and use their common sense instead of just following rules. Situation ethics also lets people decide on what is the most loving thing to do in a situation.
Moral relativism also places much less emphasis on what rules people should follow in their everyday life on earth an instead focuses on helping people develop their character such as kindness, caring and generosity. Therefore we are made into a better person. Also moral relativism promises that once we are successful in creating the sort of person we want to be, then arriving at and making decisions will come to us naturally for the rest of our lives as we have achieved the good person we want to be.
Therefore many people would argue that natural law and absolute theories are in fact the unacceptable ethical theories as they do not give people the opportunity to be independent and make moral decisions using their own common sense in the same way as moral relativist theories do. Instead it just lays down rules that we should all follow without giving any independency or choice of what we believe is right and wrong. However many argue Moral relativism is in fact an acceptable ethical theory as it gives people the opportunity to be independent and make moral decisions using their own common sense, and gives us the choice of what we believe is right and wrong.
