Download Andrew Baker - Georgetown Commons

Andrew Baker
Essay Assignment #1
10/21/07
A Critique of Ethical Relativism
Both Louis Pojman and Alison Hornsetin hold the belief that ethical relativism is
an unacceptable method for analyzing moral differences in the modern world. Due to
their loathing of ethnocentrism, people have become overly hesitant to objectively
criticize the morality of other cultures. Ethical relativists however assert that “the very
validity of the principles is a product of culture” and thus all cultures contain their own
varied and inherently justifiable moral codes (Pojman, 1994, p.239). In this essay, I will
argue that we should reject ethical relativism as a moral theory because it leads to no
intercultural analysis or judgment.
To begin any formal critique it is necessary to define the terms upon which the
theory is based. Pojman defines cultural relativism as the fact that “moral rules differ
from society to society, so that there are no moral principles accepted by all societies”
(Pojman, 1994, p.240). Pojman asserts that this anthropological thesis is fairly self
evident. There are few, if any, universal moral codes that apply within all cultures.
Conventional ethical relativism uses cultural relativism as its base, and further states that
“all valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance” (Pojman,
1994, p.244). This differs with subjective ethical relativism, commonly termed
subjectivism, which takes morality as dependent upon the individual him or herself.
In his essay, Pojman argues that ethical relativists “cannot rationally criticize
anyone who espouses what they might regard as a heinous principle… or anyone outside
their own culture. Adolf Hitler’s genocidal actions, so long as they are culturally
accepted, are as morally legitimate as Mother Teresa’s works of mercy” (Pojman, 1994,
p. 245). Ethical relativists can in no way criticize actions committed by individuals
outside of their cultural group. One cannot oppose actions of murder, oppression, rape,
etc. as morally reprehensible if they lay within the confines of a given culture’s moral
code. One can justify any action by relating it to the accepted judgment of the members
of its society.
In her essay “The Question that We Should Be Asking”, Alison Hornstein also
argues against the tenets of ethical relativism. Placing her critique within the context of
the terrorist attacks on 9/11, she notes how her peers were hesitant to place blame on the
perpetrators. They were more than willing to acknowledge the underlying cultural
circumstances that may have precipitated the event, yet would not agree that a moral
wrong had occurred. She attributed this to her generation’s reluctance to impose their
standards on other cultures. She says that “being taught to think within a framework of
moral and cultural relativity without learning its boundaries has seemingly created a
deficiency in [their] ability to make moral judgments” (Hornstein, 2001, p.1). She feels as
though some actions, such as rape and terrorism, should be morally reprehensible among
all cultures and fair game to moral speculation.
Ethical relativism is enticing as a moral theory for a variety of reasons. History
has shown that a tendency towards ethnocentrism can lead to disastrous consequences.
One must merely look at the case of the Nazi’s, who viewed themselves as the master
race, to see the slippery slope which it can ensue. Our society has chosen to endorse the
virtues of tolerance and diversity in relations to other cultures. Although different cultural
traditions may seem odd, awkward, or even disgusting to us, it does not give us the right
to belittle them.
One of the reasons that western culture today views tolerance as a virtue is
through the condemnation of actions focused on the reverse. It is all too evident that as
cultures attempt to impose their will upon others, disastrous consequences follow. This
was visible in the Spanish reconquista, where the monarch’s attempt to impose
Christianity upon the population led to the emigration of countless Muslims and Jews.
This ethnic flight, along with the murder of thousands through the Inquisition, must be
seen as a moral catastrophe. Even today, societies attempt to influence and modify others
based on their predilections. The United States felt that it was their duty to impose a
democratic regime upon an Iraqi people who had been living under authoritarian leaders
and monarchs for centuries. The result has been disastrous; hundreds of thousand have
died and the country is in political and economic shambles.
The concept that there are universal moral codes or tendencies seems to be
preposterous. The spectrum of acceptability varies incredibly within cultures; who is to
say which are truly moral? Indeed, even within one culture the moral rules appear to
change over time. In the past, slavery was seen as an acceptable American institution, yet
today it is morally abhorrent. If one group of people themselves cannot codify a timeneutral moral code, how can they believe that their present judgments are correct? The
logical conclusion is that morality derives from cultural determinants, and moral
judgments can only be made within the confines of a particular culture.
Pojman and Hornstein would both argue that the moral price one pays for
advocating strict ethical relativism outweighs the gains from increased tolerance. I agree
with their assumption that to be a consistent ethical relativist requires that you refrain
from judgment of others’ practices, no matter how repugnant. To adhere to its principles
means that you forgo your right to morally judge another society in any way. No
outsiders may protest human rights violations, ethnic cleansings, or genocide. Instead we
would live in a world partitioned by cultures able to act on their own interpretation of
morality no matter how detestable.
Ethical relativism is based on the concept that people are divided clearly into
separate societies, each having its own moral code. Yet in reality, classifications prove
much more complicated. Must a society be a nation, or can it constitute a region, or even
a city? Overlapping societies may contain contradictory moral policies, in which case the
individual is stuck in an ethical quandary. Pojman states that due to these clarification
issues, conventional relativism will “reduce to subjectivism” as the guideline of what
constitutes a group becomes increasingly more muddled. Pojman argues that subjectivism
as a concept cannot coexist with any valid interpretation of morality (Pojman, 1994, p.
247).
One of the precepts of ethical relativism is that a belief that one’s own moral
judgments are closer to the truth leads towards ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is defined
as “the uncritical belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own culture” (Pojman, 1994,
p.238). However, merely objecting to ethical relativism does not inevitably include
uncritical thinking. One can believe in the values and edicts of one’s own culture, while
still engaging in a critical discussion. Indeed, it is my opinion that a belief in a certain
moral code is essential to a critical assessment of morality. If one has no partiality
towards its own moral code, then why do they differ so greatly?
I believe that there are indeed universal moral codes. The mere acknowledgment
of differing cultural values does not exonerate a person who commits rape, murder, or
pillage. As Hornstein ascertains, “there comes a point where the refusal to take a stand on
what is wrong results in its victory” (Hornstein, 2001, p. 1). The international community
has backed this claim through the adoption of the United Nations Charter: the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. With this declaration, it was agreed by the members of the
United Nations General Assembly that all human beings deserve the right to a “dignified
and secure existence.” In it lies the prohibition of torture and slavery, the right of political
asylum, citizenship in some country, and the right to the “freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion” (United Nations, 1948, p.268-269). Even though the people of
the world live in varying societal situations, they all deserve a minimum level of
existence. This, in and of itself is a universal moral code.
Although the concepts of tolerance and diversity are noble in personal relations,
they need not be incorporated into the realm of ethics and morality. Merely stating that
cultural relativism exists does not make ethical relativism a necessity. Although many
values may be left to cultural preference, there are certain moral codes which must be
applied universally. Due to this belief, I reject ethical relativism as a moral theory and
instead advocate increased discourse on the subject of moral superiority. The questions
that remain lie in the clarification of these universal principles. Certainly there will be
disagreements among cultures, but it is only through passionate discussion that moral
progress can be made.
Bibliography

Hornstein, A. (2001, December 17). The Question that We Should Be Asking.
Newsweek, 14.

Pojman, L. (1994). Who’s to Judge? In Vice & Virtue in Everyday Life (p. 237250). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

United Nations. (1948). The United Nations Charter: The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. In Vice & Virtue in Everyday Life (p.268- 275). Orlando, FL:
Harcourt College Publishers.