ETHICAL THEORIES OF RELATIVISM AND ABSOLUTISM, Exercises of Reasoning

Download ETHICAL THEORIES OF RELATIVISM AND ABSOLUTISM and more Exercises Reasoning in PDF only on Docsity! ETHICAL THEORIES OF RELATIVISM AND ABSOLUTISM In this course we shall consider ethics from two main views, this are i. Absolutism view and ii. Relativism view Absolutism Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source. Moral Absolutism has been favoured historically largely because it makes the creation of laws and the upholding of the judicial system much simpler, and manifested itself in outdated concepts such as the Divine Right of Kings. Plato was a philosopher who argued in favour of moral absolutism and in ‘good’ that always holds its value. Absolutism might be associated with religious morality, but an individual can have an absolutist view of morality without being religious. For example, an individual might believe that slavery, war, child abuse and the death penalty are all morally wrong and cannot be justified under any circumstances. Many religions have morally absolutist positions, and regard their system of morality as having been set by a deity, and therefore absolute, perfect and unchangeable. Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes known as graded absolutism, wherein the case of a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one (God) exempts one from the duty to the lower ones (fellow humans or, still lower, property). Divine Command Theory is an absolutist meta-ethical theory that an act is obligatory if (and only if) it is commanded by God (William of Ockham argued that if God had commanded murder, then murder would indeed have been morally obligatory). Sometimes, Moral Absolutism can mean the more extreme position that actions are moral or immoral even regardless of the circumstances in which they occur (e.g. lying is always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good, such as to save a life). In this form, it can be contrasted with Consequentialism (in which a morally right action is one that produces a good consequence or outcome, regardless of the intentions). The ethical theory of absolutism, or moral absolutism, is that there are absolute moral standards against which the morality of actions can be judged. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are recognised by objective standards that apply universally, to everyone. Other terms related to ethical absolutism include: Ethical universalism which describes the situation whereby all of mankind accept and live by the same basic ethical standards regardless of culture, race or religion. Ethical objectivism which describes the view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong but rather the pure facts irrespective of scenario. Relativism The ethical theory of relativism rejects the absolutist view. It states that there is no objective or absolute moral truth, and there are no universal standards of moral behaviour. There are two aspects to relativism: Descriptive ethical relativism. This is the view that different cultures and societies have different ethical systems and cultures. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are concepts that relate to the particular culture. (There is no universal rule about right and wrong.). Normative ethical relativism. The beliefs or moral values within each culture are right within that culture. It is impossible to judge the values of another culture externally or objectively. Moral values of a culture can only be judged from within the culture. Religious relativism is an example of normative ethical relativism and maintains that one religion can be true for one person or culture but not for another. No single religion, therefore, is universally or exclusively true. Historical relativism is another example of normative ethical relativism and provides context for ethical views to vary over periods of time. For example the elimination of suspected witches or the widespread adoption of slavery in the past may not be acceptable in today’s society. Similarly Management, governance and ethics trends may move in the opposite direction – for example the liberalisation of clothing fashions or the changing role of women in society. Relativism accepts that ethical behaviour cannot be judged objectively. What is right and what is wrong can also vary according to circumstances. Pre-conventional level of morality A pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is common in children, although it can also be found in adults. Kohlberg called this level of reasoning pre-conventional because individuals at Stages 1 and 2 do not yet see themselves as members of society, and their moral reasoning is based entirely on ‘self’. Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation At Stage 1, individuals judge right and wrong on the basis of the direct consequences for them of the actions they take. i. An action is bad if the individual knows that he (or she) will be punished for it. The worse the punishment, the greater the moral wrong. ii. An action is good if the individual knows that he will receive some benefit. The individual believes that there are powerful authorities who are able to give rewards and punishments for behaviour. Stage 2: Individualism and exchange At Stage 2, the individual (often a child) recognises that there is no single view of what is right and what is wrong. Different individuals have different points of view. Each individual is also free to pursue his or her own personal interests, and will therefore want to do what is in his or her own best interest. When faced with a moral dilemma, the individual’s decision is based on: ‘What’s in it for me?’ The individual might show an interest in other people, but only to the extent that other people might help to further his own interests. A typical view in dealing with other people is; ‘You help me and I will help you’. (‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’) Concern for others has nothing to do with loyalty to the other person, respect or wanting to help them. It is based entirely on concern for oneself. Conventional level of morality The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. When individuals think in a conventional way, they judge the morality of actions by comparing the actions with the conventional views and expectations of society. Stage 3: Good interpersonal relationships Individuals now enter society and see morality as more than making deals for personal benefit. They believe that they should live up to the expectations of family, friends and the community. They are aware of the approval or disapproval that they receive from other people, and try to live up to their expectations. They enjoy respect and gratitude, and their moral outlook is based on how this will be obtained. They want to be a ‘good boy’ or a ‘nice girl’. Good behaviour means having good motives and feelings of love, trust and concern for others. The actions of another person are often judged by the reasoning: ‘He means well….’ Stage 4: Maintaining social order The moral reasoning at Stage 3 is based largely on interpersonal relationships and feelings, with family members and close friends, where it is possible to get to know the feelings and opinions of the other person very well, and try to help them. At Stage 4, the individual is concerned with society as a whole, and the need to maintain social order. The focus is on respect for social conventions, authority and obeying the law, because these are important for maintaining society. Post-conventional level of morality The post-conventional level of morality is also called the ‘principled’ level. The individual now realises that he is a person with his own views, and not just a member of society. The individual does not accept that social conventions are necessarily correct. However, this is a higher level of moral development than the pre-conventional level, because the individual takes a principled view, not a purely selfish view of right and wrong. Stage 5: Social contract orientation At Stage 5, individuals think about society differently from the conventional way. They take the view that a good society is one in which there is a ‘social contract’ in which everyone works towards the common benefit of society. They recognise that people are different and have the right to their own views and opinions. However, all rational-minded people should agree about two things: 1. All people should have certain basic rights that society will protect, such as life and freedom. 2. There should be some form of democratic procedure for changing laws that are unfair and for improving society. At Stage 5 people talk about ‘morality’ and ‘rights’ from their own individual perspective, recognising that other people might disagree (subject to the two points above). In contrast, individuals at Stage 4 might talk about ‘morality’ and ‘rights’ because they belong to a social group (such as a religious group) that supports these concepts. Stage 4 individuals believe in ‘rights’ because they are conforming to their group, not because they have reached their moral viewpoint individually. Stage 6: Universal ethical principles Kohlberg suggested that individuals very rarely reach Stage 6 of moral development. At this stage, moral reasoning is based on abstract ‘universal’ ethical principles. The individual queries the validity of laws, and considers that laws are only valid if they are based on justice. Individuals have an obligation to disobey unjust laws. An individual makes moral decisions because they are right, not because they are a means to an end, or because the action is legal or expected. There are universal principles of justice requiring that all people should be treated impartially, in an equal manner and with dignity. For example, it is morally wrong to vote for a law that helps some people but hurts others. The Heinz dilemma Kohlberg used a number of fictional case studies involving a moral dilemma, to establish the stage of moral development and reasoning that an individual had reached. One of these case studies is called “the Heinz dilemma”, the case provide a good illustration of Kohlberg’s analysis. In this example, you should note that individuals at the same stage of moral development can reach differing views of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Kohlberg was interested in the moral reasoning that individuals use to justify their opinions, rather than the actual decision that they reach through their reasoning. The case study: The Heinz dilemma In this case, Heinz`s wife is suffering from cancer and close to death. There is one drug that doctors think might save her. This is a drug that a scientist in the same town has recently discovered. The drug is expensive to produce, but the price charged for the drug by the scientist is ten times its production cost. The scientist paid $200 to make the drug and was charging $2,000 for a small dose. Heinz wanted to buy the drug for his wife, but had very little money. He went to everyone he knew to obtain the money to buy the drug, but could raise only $1,000. He told the scientist about his wife’s medical condition and that he could raise $1,000. He asked the scientist to let him buy the drug at that price, or let him pay the rest of the money later. The scientist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and intended to make money from producing it. Heinz, in