Moral Relativism

Situation Ethics is another type of Moral Relativism. It is a type of ethics which encourages people to stop following the crowd and following other peoples moral rules, but to think for themselves and come up with their own moral principles. Instead of coming up with a moral code to cover every possible situation, everyone should ask themselves "What does love require of me?" Joseph Fletcher was the first to propose this type of morality. He based situation ethics on the one idea of Christian love, known as agape. Agape is the Christian idea of unconditional love, therefore in every situation one should ask themselves, "What is the most loving thing I can do in this situation?" For example if your old Grandmother was dying slowly in great pain and was praying for death, and asked you to kill her as she slept, and you thought it was the most loving thing you could do in that situation. If you do it, you have practiced by your situation ethics; however by doing this in the UK you are breaking the law as it is classed as murder. In Switzerland, euthanasia otherwise known assisted suicide is legal.

Many scholars supported Moral Relativism. Such as J.A.T Robinson who whole-heartedly believed that Situation Ethics was the only way of life. He believed that there would be no need for rules if people were guided by the idea of agape. Fletcher's ideas influenced people like, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King expressed the need for agape love in certain situations.

b) Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Moral Relativism.

Philosophers support Moral Relativism because it can be seen as fair. Fair because every society has the right to live by a certain 'moral code' which is beneficial to the majority of that certain society. The Eastern Worlds ideas of Moral Relativism can be misconstrued as 'extreme' to the Western Worlds ideas, as they both live and been brought up in very different cultures and what they see to be right and wrong is different to others. Everyone is reasonably happy and live by their own set of moral rules. Which is normally made law.

However there are also reasons why philosophers can criticize Moral Relativism. Some people believe that moral relativism is useless. And don't tolerate other culture's way of life. For example in Muslim countries women walk around showing nothing but their eyes, and what they do wear does not cling to them to show their womanly figure. This sends out the idea that women should be appreciated for the mind not the way they look, and stops predatory eyes from looking at therefore thinking about them sexually. The women have certain moral values, which gives them power over men. However in the Western world, you see women wearing hardly anything, exposing the chests, wearing skirts which are no longer than a belt. You see women in underwear/bikinis plastered all over the television, and advertisements, selling beer or cars. This creates anger between the West and the East as they disagree on the way women show themselves. Provoking wars and suchlike.

I personally agree and disagree with the idea of 'Moral Relativism', I agree that different cultures and countries have different ideas on laws and about what is right and wrong. As everyone is initialled to their own opinion, and therefore can decide what is best for that particular society. However if everyone all over the world followed moral relativism, you would have to let different cultures do whatever they so wished. The Nazi's idea of genocide against Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies etc. Would that be ok? Would we be able to just sit back and watch? Well we would have to, as they see it as being right and others see it as being wrong. But as moral relativism states, you have to tolerate others moral codes and let them do what they wish.

Based on Situation Ethics I do not agree. The idea of Christian unconditional love (agape), yes, is a good idea. But it will get to the point where everyone's answer to everything is that it was "the most loving thing to do". Whether or not it was, you could not argue with them as you yourself cannot prove that they did not think it was the most living thing to do.

I think that the basic idea of moral relativism is a good idea, respecting other countries/cultures/religions views and the way they rule their country is fine. But there should be certain laws of absolutism worldwide. For example, murder, genocide, paedophilia etc should be banned. Everything else can be decided according to the country, and then we should therefore respect it.