| The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. |  |
The word on the week two weeks ago was absolutism (read it here) and so now we turn to the opposite ethical viewpoint; relativism.
One could be forgiven for thinking that relativism is a modern phenomena, perhaps born in the “swinging 60s” when social attitudes towards a huge number of issues began to change. However it has roots that go back much further: As early as 450 B.C. Protagoras, a Presocratic Philosopher, is remembered for his relativist statement that “man is the measure of all things”. He argued that Humans create moral standards for themselves and he is hailed as the first cultural relativist (Fieser).
One could be forgiven for thinking that relativism is a modern phenomena, perhaps born in the “swinging 60s” when social attitudes towards a huge number of issues began to change. However it has roots that go back much further: As early as 450 B.C. Protagoras, a Presocratic Philosopher, is remembered for his relativist statement that “man is the measure of all things”. He argued that Humans create moral standards for themselves and he is hailed as the first cultural relativist (Fieser).
Another major contributor to the relativist position came a long time before the 1960s – Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a revolutionary thinker for his time. He shunned conventional views of religion and morality and adopted instead the radical opinion that the only measure of good was the outcome that brought about “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” and that this “is the measure of right and wrong” (Bentham). He threw out the received wisdom of absolute moral laws given by God (indeed he was an avowed atheist) or dictated by the monarch. His moral philosophy was further developed by J.S. Mill and later Sidgwick, Hare and Singer amongst others; these philosophers adapted the basic tenets of the theory to deal with various criticisms but all hold to the notion that there cannot be one moral rule for all situations.
So what about the swinging 60s? Well they did have a big influence upon another major relativist ethical theory; Situation Ethics. Thinkers such as J.A.T. Robinson and Joseph Fletcher recognised that society had become rather disillusioned with the seemingly inflexible ethics of Christianity. The story may well be apocryphal, but Fletcher was apparently inspired by talking to a Chicago cabbie who told him that “sometimes you just have to forget the rules and do the right thing!” These theologians focused on agape (unconditional love) as the only absolute and that all moral rules should be adapted and altered to ensure that agape is achieved.
So does relativism work? Well in general in does produce moral answers that are flexible and seemingly more compassionate. Students I teach often agree that real-life problems require an approach that is able to adapt and react to the situation. However the serious objection is that relativism is inconsistent and impossible to apply accurately; for example how does Bentham propose we accurately measure pleasure? How can Fletcher ensure all people are shown agape? Surely it is better to use a set rule that everyone knows in advance and furthermore can show no unintentional favoritism or bias?
Are you a moral relativist? Or are you more convinced by absolutism?
So does relativism work? Well in general in does produce moral answers that are flexible and seemingly more compassionate. Students I teach often agree that real-life problems require an approach that is able to adapt and react to the situation. However the serious objection is that relativism is inconsistent and impossible to apply accurately; for example how does Bentham propose we accurately measure pleasure? How can Fletcher ensure all people are shown agape? Surely it is better to use a set rule that everyone knows in advance and furthermore can show no unintentional favoritism or bias?
Are you a moral relativist? Or are you more convinced by absolutism?
RSS Feed
