Download Relativism, Absolutism and Pluralism

Practical Ethics Series
When in Rome … or
Ethical Relativism and Absolutism
Terry L Anderson
Dec 16, 2000
(Copyright 2000, by Terry L Anderson)
Primary Sources (Listed in order of extent of contribution):
 Lawrence M. Himnan. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 1998. Harcourt Brace College
Pulblishers.
 James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 1999 McGraw-Hill.
 Fred Feldman. Introductory Ethics. 1978. Prentice-Hall.
 Ruth Benedict. Patterns of Culture. 1934. Houghton-Mifflin Co.
Introduction
Societies pass on their culture, customs and values, mores and morals to the next generation in a process called
acculturation. This leads to a distinct set of morals within each social group: Relativism. There can be little
argument that morals vary. The question is are there absolutes by which these societal morals can be judged:
Absolutism.
But, of course, the process does not produce a perfect copy and so culture evolves. Each social group has its unique
cultural identity but does live in complete isolation and so interactions add to the evolving of culture. The modern
world with increased travel and communications leads to a much greater degree of interaction so that individuals
represent a unique mixture of cultural elements. Intermarriage between social groups also lead to “polyculturalism”.
The post-modern world has increased these effects to the extent that some argue that life is now “post-cultural”:
there are no longer any significant package of culture passed between generations, but rather children adopt customs
and values from a variety of sources, but may share more with others of their generation (from all over the world)
than with their parents.
Given this chaotic way moral values and other elements of culture are acquired, what constitutes a moral standard?
Are morals simply the rules of the social group one lives in (relativism) or can we establish common agreement
(absolutism).
We will ignore religion as a source of absolutism for the moment as that is our next topic.
Differences
Rachels retells a story from Herodotus’ History:
Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures he encountered in his travels. He
had found, for example, that the Callatians (a tribe of Indians) customarily ate the bodies of their dead
fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that – the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral
-2-
pyre as the natural and iftting way to dispose of the dead. Darius thought that a sophisticated understanding
of the world must include an appreciation of such differences between cultures. One day, to teach this
lesson, he summoned some Greeks who happened to be present at his court and asked them what they
would take to eat the bodies of their dead fathers. They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be, and
replied that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a ting. Then Darius called in some
Callatians, and while the Greeks istened asked them what they would take to burn their dead fathers’
bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told Darius not even to mention such a dreadful thing.
A few years ago a couple visiting from a Scandinavian country, left their child in a stroller outside a restaurant in
cold weather while they had dinner. Someone called the police and their child was near taken from them for neglect
and abuse. They argued that this was common practice in their country, while Americans viewed it as abusive.
Hinman tells another story:
In the heartland of America, the bridegrooms thought it was a joyous occasion – not just a wedding, but a
double wedding in which the brides were sisters. The men, refugees from persecution in their native Iraq,
felt that they were indeed fortunate. Latif Al-Hussani and Majed Al-Tamimy had fled Iraq to a series of
refugee camps in Saudi Arabia. In one of those camps, the two men cane to know Salim, the father of their
future brides. The acquaintance was rekindled when Latif and Majed met Salim in Lincoln, Nebraska,
where they had all resettled. Eventually the two men asked Salim for permission to marry his two
daughters. The marriage, a religious ceremony, took place at home; no one bothered with a civil ceremony.
Shortly after the wedding, one of the newly married wives ran away, apparently to a boyfriend’s house. Her
husband and her father went to the police together to report her disappearance. Soon both husbands and the
father were in jail, and the mother of the girls was charges as well. The girls themselves were placed in
protective custody. They were thirteen and fourteen years old.
The two men, twenty-eight and thirty-two years old, maintained that they didn’t know that they had done
anything wrong. Would they have gone to the police, they ask, if they thought they had done something
illegal? In Iraq, it is legal for thirteen-year-old girls to marry; and in the rural part of Iraq where these men
grew up, it is not uncommon. The men thought that, by asking the father’s permission, they were following
the proper form. But marriages of girls that age, although once legal in America, are now against the law.
Indeed, the consummation of such a marriage counts as statutory rape. Both new husbands were in fact
charged with statutory rape, and the girls’ parents were charged with contributing to the deliquency of a
minor. Both husbands were sentenced to prison terms of four to six years.
Would the results have differed if the men had married before entering the US?
Relativism, Absolutism and Pluralism
Obviously different cultures had very different notions of what is proper, even for moral questions. Relativism
argues that this is inevitable. Morally right is simply what your social group says it is, what your parents taught you,
what your inherited culture says is right. There is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various
cultural codes, and nothing more. Common arguments for relativism is that is promotes tolerance, respect and
understanding of other cultures; it avoids cultural egoism (“my morals are better than your morals”); it accepts the
inevitable; it avoids being judgmental; it recognizes that no universally accepted code or basis for a code exists.
In addition to cultural differences, we will be examining, over the course of these studies, many moral theories, from
Utilitarianism, Egoism, Rights theories, and Religious Morality to Virtue Ethics. These constitute theoretical
reasons to disagree about morality – another sort of relativism.
Descriptive Ethical Relativism simply recognizes that moral beliefs differ among different cultural and social group;
it takes no position on the rightness or wrongness of these differences. Normative Ethical Relativism is more
controversial, taking the position that all societies have the right to their own moral code and each is valid for
members of that group.
-3-
While Absolutism, argues that while differences in understanding are inevitable, there is an absolute moral right,
however much it is distorted in existing societies. Most religions teach moral absolutism (each, of course, different).
Finally, there is a position that argues that there is no valid basis for absolutism and yet there must be some
fundamental agreement about basic morals; that unconstrained relativism should not be accepted. This middle
ground position, Pluralism, recognizes that there valuable lessons to be learned from the moral codes of most
societies. That there are valid reasons to recognize the right of societies to differ in the details of their moral codes.
That social groups should tolerate, respect and attempt to understand these differences. And yet, there are some
reasonably common moral elements appearing in most societies: respect for life freedom and equality – and these
constitute a minimal moral standard from which to judge differing moral codes. (Of course, the difficulty is in
agreeing what constitutes this minimal moral standard). And some would consider only this common basis as true
morals and the elements that differ to be customs or mores.
Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
One difficulty with relativism is what constitutes a society or group. Can one join a group because one likes
their moral code? How small can a group be? Can it be just one person? (Ethical Subjectivism or Egoism).
Can one establish a common basis for judging moral codes without Absolutism or Religion?
Are any social groups today sufficiently isolated as to permit a strictly local moral code?
One definition of relativism is: “an act is morally right only if it agrees with the conventions of the society in
which it is performed”. Such a definition makes social or moral reform always wrong (immoral).
Applications
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
polygomy
respect for life, arab attitude on raped family members, capital punishment.
cheating
freedom and equality for women
should foreigners be obligated to follow American moral standards when dealing with each other (husband &
wife, business associates, parent child, …) in America?
How does one practice morality in international business where standards of business conduct that are common
in one country are illegal in another and laws may be enforced in one country on the business dealings
conducted in another.