Some might find it hard to accept relativism but it could be argued that any moral code is better than none.I think this could be true. The absence of ethical or moral rules would be disastrous for any society, it would not survive either internally or alongside other cultures.
Absolutists state that moral codes should be universal and believers in this theory are often [but not always] religious.A vast majority of religious followers subscribe to the absolute morality theory and believe that ethical morality is rooted firmly in their religious teachings, whatever that religion maybe.
One of the main differences between relativism and absolutism appears to be toleration. Relativists appear to be more tolerant of others and accept that different cultures live differently and follow different moral codes for whatever reason. These reasons are many, it could be because of tradition, religion or simply for practical survival.
Absolutists can appear to be intolerant of other peoples' beliefs and moral ethics.Their belief of what is right and wrong appears to some to be rigid and unbending. Because most absolutists' beliefs seem to be seated in religion of some kind this can appear hypocritical as most religions endeavor to promote tolerance of others.Christians, for instance, believe that the Ten Commandments were issued by God [their creator] to remind humankind of their obligations to life and others. Other religions have similar codes on which their faith is based.Unless there is universal belief in one true God there will always be differing opinions of what is right or wrong.Absolutists believe their way is right and could be accused of arrogance. This is illustrated by the work of missionaries that travel to remote cultures to teach them their values.
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of moral relativism.
Relative morality has had in the past many followers. Supporters of various forms of socialism and non religious groups usually support relativism in some form.An example of this is Marxism, a movement created by a German philosopher called Karl Marx. He argued that morality exists merely to give the ruling classes power. Power to monopolise religion, education. law and morality, allowing them to dictate values to others.Relativists do not believe that any one person should dictate how others conduct their lives.
If taken to the extreme this could lead to individuals deciding what is morally right or wrong for themselves. The danger in this is that disputes could never be settled, without basic moral guidelines societies would collapse.It could be said that moral codes existing within a culture is enough but this can lead to that group becoming insular and rejected by other groups or cause confrontations and wars.
In modern times it could be argued that relativism is a dangerous state. With ever changing technology and ecological evolution having what other cultures consider bad moral codes can cause outrage and conflict in a world that is becoming more dependant on international cooperation.
Another weakness in relativism is that it appears that morals are created by man to suit different ways of life. This could be by tradition or adapting to circumstances. Jeremy Bentham wrote in 1789 'All human actions are motivated by the desire to obtain pleasure and avoid pain'. Does this mean that whatever actions are necessary to obtain pleasure are morally correct.The weakness in this attitude is that what may gain pleasure for one may cause pain for another. Is this still morally correct?
Whether a person is a relativist or an asolutist it could be said that there is an underlying common denominator beneath all moral codes existing in different cultures. In almost every society there is a hatred of crimes such as unecessary killing [murder], theft and abuse. However the interpretation of these is different in different cultures. For instance sacrifice and euthanasia are technically murder but are accepted as morally right by some.It cannot be right that some relativists happily accept that murder in some cases should be allowed.
Relativism seems to hold the view that morality is created by man according to need or want. But most social groups are ruled by the few who want the rest to follow their values. In the past this created imbalance in societies, as it does today, giving power to some. When pagen cultures decayed many turned to christianity because it seemed to give moral citizenship to all, even lowly people and slaves. People thought this would rebalance society.
Relativism does have some strengths. It teaches tolerance of others who may hold different views, making people examine why different cultures behave as they do and encouraging compromise so that different people of different moral standards can co-exist.Relative morality appears to be more compatible with modern life. Whoever created mankind gave us the intelligence to evolve and adapt which means that moral values will inevitably change.Absolutists would argue that universal morality should exist whatever other changes take place but as long as the common denominator morals remain in place it is impossible to expect individual values to stay the same.
Relativism seems to put the responsibility of good moral behaviour with the individual. Whilst we cannot have people behaving exactly how they would like without some consideration for others I think that to make individuals responsible for their own actions is a good moral starting place.
