The rightness or wrongness of an action may
depend on many things depending on what kind
of relativism you follow
Culture
Time period
Indivudual
Situation
Originates from
ancient Greek
beliefs
The Sophists
Protagoras: 'Man is the
measure of all things.'
Herodotus: 'each society regards its own
belief system as better than all others.'
Nothing is intrinsically good
Cultural relativism
Based on the
diversity thesis:
because of the
diversity
between
cultures, there
can be no one
true morality.
A similar theory is
dependency thesis
Strong dependency thesis:
right and wrong depends on
the nature of a society
Weak dependency thesis: there are
objective moral values, but different
cultures interpret them differently
Herodotus and the Greeks and
Callatians: each society was
disgusted by the other's funeral
practises
Nancy Scheper-Hughes - we have no basis to criticise
any culture other than our own. This means we should be
tolerant of other cultures and not interfere with them.
For and against relativism
For
It allows
progress as
we are open to
other people's
ideas
It promotes
tolerance and
non-interference
It's easy to explain the source of
morality; it can be hard to explain
where moral absolutes come from.
There is no need for a deity
- attractive to atheists
The situation and the
individual are taken into
account
Morality is easy -
you just follow your
society
Against
Forces you to conform
to society's values
Majority views are always 'right' -
but what if the majority is Nazi
Germany, or the Apartheid regime?
We cannot interfere even if another culture
is doing something clearly evil (eg WW2)
There are some generally
agreed on moral values
The 'golden rule'
Socrates: 'All humans have an innate
understanding of what is right and wrong.'
There is no
reason to be
moral except to
be accepted by
your society
We belong
to
different
overlapping
cultures
Creates
a 'we vs
they'
mentality
It's
dangerously
close to
being
subjectivism
Absolutism
An absolute
is always
true for all
times, places,
people and
cultures
Objective and
deontological;
consequences
are unimportant
as absolutes
are intrinsically
good or bad
For a theist,
absolutes come
from a deity.
For an atheist
they are 'a
priori' in nature
(ie they are
moral law
because they
are
advantageous to
our survival)
The ten commandments
are an example
Absolutists may have 'graded absolutes' where some
are more important, so a conflict of absolutes can be
avoided
eg Corrie ten Boom - broke the
absolute of not lying in order to
protect Jews from Nazis, obeying
the higher absolute of always
protecting the innocent
For and
against
absolutism
For
An
easy,
simple
code to
follow
Allows
intervention in
other cultures if
they're doing
something wrong
Every society has
absolutes: the law.
So we all live by
absolutes
Easy to
justify if
you are
religious
There
are
some
general
moral
values
Against
Hard to justify
if you are
non-religious
Creates
conflict
between
groups and
can cause
interference
What if the
absolutes you
follow are wrong
and you don't
know it?
Makes cultural development hard
Doesn't consider the situation
Subjectivism
A form of relativism
Follows the idea that
right or wrong depends
on what the individual
wants to be moral
Ernest Hemingway: 'What is moral you feel
good after and what is immoral you feel
bad after.'
Very problematic: serial killer Ted
Bundy used it to justify his killings