Morals are intense! Ethical Relativism vs. Objectivism (CAUTION: marijuana references!)

Ethical relativism has a few subtypes, but generally speaking, this theory states that moral principles can and will be vastly different between cultures and individuals.  Acts are deemed correct as long as they are permitted by the moral beliefs of the respective framework.  This sounds easy enough to understand, but how does one determine the boundaries of a framework? 

Louis Pojman helps to classify this dilemma by breaking ethical relativism into two categories.  Subjectivism, the claim that morality is based upon a personal decision, would argue that neither set of laws should restrict an individual’s right to smoke weed.  Obviously, subjective relativism does not really apply to the United States democracy, yet there are people that think it should apply because they think smoking weed should be their own moral choice.  Conventionalism, the claim that morality is based upon social acceptance, would apply to both sets of laws and probably find both to be valid, although contradictory.  Many people uphold this because they know some of the morals of other people will put them in danger.  Democracy as a system seemingly follows a formula that embraces conventional relativism by defining its set of morals and laws to best suit the needs of majority. 

Conventional relativism applies to almost all cultures, so it is a common belief in anthropology. Anthropology seeks to understand human beings by trying to answer some of the most fundamental questions of humanity; “What does it mean to be human?” “How do humans behave?” “What do humans believe?”

Consequently, cultural relativism requires the inquirer to ignore personal beliefs and morals in order to better understand the beliefs and morals of other cultures.  This style makes no effort to determine specific beliefs as true or false.

Philosophical relativism does not contrast this however.  A normative relativist would claim that morals cannot be categorized simply as right or wrong but instead maintain a sense of flexibility within the relative framework to which they occur.  This does not mean that every environment or community has a “true” set of morals, only that each individual belief can be evaluated for validity.  Normative relativism occasionally uses the claims set forth by descriptive relativism by using their empirical value to aid, not prove moral validity.

Stuart Rachels gives an example of relativism in his cultural differences argument by comparing the Greek and Callatian societies.  The Greeks had a tradition of burning their dead while the Callatians had a tradition of eating their dead.  Both societies felt that their own death ritual was perfectly acceptable, but viewed the other as an atrocity.  Because neither tradition was viewed as either objectively right or wrong, Rachels suggests that there are no objective moral “truths” at all. 

Hypothetically, even if morality were based on an objective set of guidelines, the practicality of such a concept becoming universal is laughable.  Objective moral standards would force people to make decisions to which they might not agree.  If everyone were expected to follow the same standards, the result would be a dull world of conform where people make all the exact same decisions as everyone else.   Free will and individuality are quite possibly the most attractive characteristics to human life.  There are probably not very many people who would willingly sacrifice these gifts.  If these claims are true, I have trouble understanding why anyone would ever be in favor of a theory that could potentially restrict his own humanity. 

I dare speculate that perhaps those in favor of moral objectivism are the very same in favor of mass conformity; the very same people who would benefit from a population that “thinks” the same way.  I am referring to people of power who would use a universal moral code as a means of control.  Throughout history, many dominant empires took advantage of religious morality as a way to motivate citizens to remain loyal and fight to spread boundaries.  A few notable examples include the holy wars, Japanese and Middle Eastern suicide bombers, and early exploration and exploitation of Africa.

Regardless of any desire for widespread moral objectivism, a person will never willingly act in a way that seriously contrasts his own perception of morality.  Additionally, there could be no moral standard that adequately pleases all.  Consequently, I find little value in a claim that suggests morality is universally valid. 

Personally, I feel that moral relativism is a much better way to determine the correctness of an action because interpretations of right and wrong vary so greatly between people and cultures.  By merely looking at the vast differences in human lifestyles, I conclude that morals must be evaluated relative to a cultural framework.  Although laws seem to be a necessary precaution to help guide an individual’s moral foundation, actions will ultimately be based on one’s own understanding of morality.  Every person is unique in their beliefs and view of the world, so I find subjective relativism to be the most applicable moral theory.