People’s morals are dependant on the cultures they are brought up on and as relativist JL Mackie said, “there are no objective values.” This means that there is not a certain set of correct moral values and that morals are changeable in individual events. This portrays the influence of your culture has on your moral beliefs. This is proved by the findings of feral children. These people are brought up by animals and they learn the traits of these animals. However when they are bought to human civilization it seems they have no moral beliefs or understanding. This proves Mackie’s point that you don’t have morals when you are born.
The sophists perhaps epitomise the diversity of different cultures. The sophists were travelling teachers who argued morality was relative. They felt right and wrong varied from place to place and person to person. They felt that truth was variable so when they arrived in a town they would simply tell the inhabitants what they wanted to hear. The most famous sophist was a man named Protagoras. He famously said, “Man is the measure of all things” meaning that the world is based upon the way you view yourself.
Moral relativism is the position that there is no universal truth. All principles are relative to a particular culture or age. Time, culture, peers, religion, place and society may influence morality. This is a teleogical or consequentialist approach. Consequentialism is the idea that moral decisions are based on results or consequences. A consequentialist approach to decision making is summed up by the phrase “the end justifies the means.” In other words, a good result outweighs any harm that may be done in achieving that result. This is relative, as it doesn’t take into account what is normally seen as moral and only whether the result is desirable. For example if someone needed to feed their children but couldn’t afford to do so and the only means of feeding them was to steal and this would result in feeding their children then it would be seen as consequentialist. This is similar to Instrumental ethics. This means that something is good because it leads to a desired result. An egoist is someone wh0o does things for the best intentions of himself and himself only.
Utilitarianism accepts the existence of ethical conflict and is based on the question, “which act will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people?” Doing something that has a negative impact on yourself but helps more people is seen as morally right. If you did something that is seen as immoral but had a positive effect on the majority involved then this would be seen as utilitarianism. The most famous utilitarian was John Stuart Mill. He believed that we have motivations to abide by the Utilitarian standard of morality. There are two classes of motivations for promoting general happiness. There are external sanctions and internal sanctions. External sanctions arise from our hope of pleasing and fear of displeasing God and others whereas internal sanctions come from our desire of pleasing ourselves. Subjective morality is dependant on an individual’s internal thought. This means that a person would get the choice to make a personal moral decision.
The fundamental difference between Cultural and Moral relativism is that moral is more individual to a particular person. It is more down to that persons true beliefs. Cultural relativism influences people’s own personal moral opinions and so it results in consistent moral beliefs throughout that particular culture. Though it seems there is no moral truths “there are no objective values.” that exists to the world it seems that there is in different cultures. It is almost absolutist as you are supposed to abide by the moral beliefs of that particular culture.
B) “Relativist theories are always unfair because they do not apply to everyone” Discuss
One of the abundant reasons why people would agree with the statement above and believe that relative theories are unfair is because it can justify breaking the law. This is their view due to the ethos behind Consequentialism. This means that people do whatever they need to do to reach a desired result including breaking the law. To use my analogy from earlier, if a parent needs to feed their children but cant afford too and so steal food, would be agreeable by a consequentialist but not by the law.
Another reason is egoism. This would result in an incredibly selfish society, as everyone would be doing things for the greater good of themselves. Existentialism would have a similar if not worse effect on the world. This is where individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives and thus could cause anarchic consequences.
Relativist theories always require people to make their own decisions. Although this would not be a problem for the majority some people would be especially prone to make wrong decisions that could result in disastrous consequences. It also would result in inconsistency as there would be no laws and each decision would depend on each situation. It allows one thing for one person and something different for another.
Lastly, it would allow prejudices to come in. If people are allowed to make their own decisions then there will always be someone who disagree with them. This would result in prejudice that could have a large negative impact on the state of the world.
One of a cornucopia of reasons people find relativist theories are fair is utilitarianism. It is a theory, which results in the good for the majority of people. This would mean that decisions would be made on what would have the greatest impact, which would result in a very fair and selfless society.
Also, relativism leads to more respect for people, as they have to make their own decisions. It would mean people would now have a chance to think for themselves. This would surely mean that people would be able to express their opinions on things more openly and thus would result in faster development of society. It would allow society to move on, as there would be no fixed rules.
Situation ethics (a relative theory) is where love (agape) is the only absolute. It is easy to understand and can constantly be upgraded for new problems. It also focuses on humans and concerns for others. It allows people to take responsibility for their own decisions and make up their own minds about what is right or wrong.
Both opinions have sufficient ground for argument but I personally believe that it is fair to an extent. I do believe it is fairer than absolutism but there are still some fundamental flaws. I believe that it would be incredibly hard to condemn different crimes as in different circumstances it may not be seen as bad. Although thanks to utilitarianism some people would do things for the greater amount of people some egoists would do what is best for them. Many relativist theories contradict each other anyway and until these are resolved relativist theories cannot become any more involved in today’s society.
