Canada is the central hub when it comes to foreign immigration from various places around the world. The United States, similarly to Canada also welcomes immigrants into their country; however, immigration policies are set in place to eventually Americanize the new immigrants into a homogeneous ‘melting pot’. Canadian society on the other hand, has a long standing history of tolerance and morally relativity. Therefore, immigrants living in Canada retain much of their native morals, and even find it comfortable to continue practicing those values within the greater Canadian moral scheme. There are however, problems in a morally relevant society, especially in a multicultural environment where all that is done is simply acknowledging different cultural values. Although relativism preaches tolerance, it does not however make any attempt to view foreign moral standards critically in the slightest and therefore, moral relativism allows for the stagnation of a set of morals. Relativism is flawed in the sense that it leaves the potential for collective achievement undermined, and this can lead to social barriers within the society. Division is created within the society, according to various groups sharing similar moral values, or cultural beliefs. This division creates boundaries and the labelling of certain groups attributed to certain cultural values, as well as creating economic boundaries. Cross-cultural moral relativism in Toronto creates ethnic enclaves within the city, where much of the economic movement is done intra-culturally. Division will ultimately damage the collective thought, since relativism denies the ability to compare one society’s morals to another, since there is no common ground. The common moral ground cannot be found in relativistic ideals, since relativism is the acknowledgement of accepting the moral fact that different cultures have different sets of moral values; hence, is no reason to create commonality between them.
The attempt to create commonality however, is found in the thoughts of moral absolutism. Absolutism is the search to find the single, right, universal morality. It is the belief that, unlike relativism, all other moralities are flawed, and therefore one’s own moral values are solely valid (Hinmin, 2005). Absolutism raises thoughts that relativism fails to address, thus creating polar ends on the moral scale. There lies a fundamental problem in relativism, stemming from a lack of attempt to create a standard moral view shared by every different society, so we can reconstruct an understanding of how their different morals came to existence. Without a point of reference, studying the evolution and origins of other moral values is rather woolly, if not outright ambiguous. In order to find this universal morality, it is imperative to break down human behaviour and thought into its most basic, primitive, and raw form. In the book by Charles Taylor, titled Modern Social Imaginaries, he included a quote by Grotius which states, “Human beings are rational, sociable agents who are meant to collaborate in peace to their mutual benefit” (Taylor, 2002, p.3). In other words, the primary drive of all human beings is the will for survival, since all decisions, actions, thoughts, and technological innovations from the beginning of humanity were focused on “what is [morally] right is what promotes survival” (Hospers, 1993, p.171). John Hospers provides an interesting thought on critiquing relativism where he states that, “different groups may be using the same basic moral principles but applying them in different ways to different situations” (Hospers, 1993, p.171). The fundamental morality which Hospers is referring to is the capacity to live.
Human beings are principally social creatures because living in a group community optimizes the chance of survival of the individual. Hence, it is logical that many cultural morals conceived by humanity until now relate to, in some primordial way, the basic determination for survival. For example, Aztec religious rituals consisted of daily events where a human sacrifice is sent to the top of a pyramid temple. This is when their chest is cut open in an appropriate method to reach the still-beating heart inside, when it is subsequently ripped out. The first Spanish explorers, who observed this ritual at the time, thought the ritual to be senseless violence and the natives as barbaric and cruel. The Aztecs actually practiced this ceremony for millenniums because of their belief that, if they do not sacrifice the blood of a human being every day, the Sun will not rise the next morning. Of course, if the Sun does not rise the following morning, then all of their crops will fail, and the civilization shall starve to death. Believe it or not, the Aztec rituals were still very much parallel with the central value of humanity as discussed by Hospers; the existence of a basic moral (survival), but “applying them in different ways to different solutions” (human sacrifices). Unlike relativism, absolutism states that certain morals should be considered intolerable, and hence be reprimanded. Hospers points out the issue of slavery to critically analyze the relativist position, and their perceivable predicament. He states that relativists “may believe in some one overall standard of right, such as the maximum happiness of the people concerned… and if so, since he has one standard of rightness, he is no relativist” (Hospers, 1993, p.172). Hospers is attempting to address the problem of the relativist view by illustrating a fundamental weakness. The failure occurs when attempting to explain the reasons that a particular moral, in this case slavery, in one society are acceptable while in another society it is deemed wrong. This weakness in relativism, as well as the exclusiveness, and limited nature of absolutism, gave way towards developing a hybrid idea commonly known as pluralism.
Pluralism is the concept of utilizing the strengths shown in relativism and absolutism, and attempting to combine those ideas into a more moderate area of thought. In other words, pluralism attempts to draw a line by exempting the more extreme relativist thoughts of complete tolerance of all morals, and the absolutist thought of one sole moral correctness (Hinman, 2005). This moderation is useful because we can now incorporate the acknowledgement of moral diversity given by relativism, and combine it with the ability to make judgement on intolerable morals given by absolutism and use them as analytical tools to further progress on a social level. Progress cannot be made by using those ideas solely; we can only further our understanding of ourselves by critically thinking about the state of morality in Canada. As visible minorities are becoming larger portions of the Canadian population, we as Canadians must take a strong morally pluralistic approach in our inter-moral relationships of different societies with different moral values. Ergo, we can hope to work together constructively in embracing a new Canadian identity; one that is multi-cultural, as well as multi-moral.
References
Benedict, R. (1993). A Defence of Moral Relativism. In C Sommers & F Sommers (Eds.), Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life: Edition three (pp.160-168). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hospers, J. (1993). The Trouble with Relativism. In C Sommers & F Sommers (Eds.), Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life (pp.169-173). Harcourt Bruce.
Taylor, C. (2002). Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.
Hinman, L. (2005, October 12). Ethical Relativism. Retrieved November 30, 2005, from University of San Diego, Techprof Web site:
Moral Relativism
Ryerson University
Paul Yoon
040768996
December 2, 2005
D. Checkland
