subject: Ethical Relativism and the False Dichotomy [print this page] I believe there to be a false dichotomy among blooms
There is not a huge amount to Ethical Relativism, as far as I gather. Or at least it may be summed up by the few key statements below. All societies have their own moral code that decides what it is right and wrong in that society. There is no objective standard by which any society's moral codes and ethical practices may be judged. There is no absolute truth in ethics so that no one society's moral code applies to all people at all times, including those inside, and outside of their society.
The largest basis for this theory is that we have no definitive objective or absolute standard by which we may judge different cultures. Without this all we are left with are different cultures and their various customs, which we have no authority to judge. Despite the grievous differences between some cultures, many have come to the conclusion that we must find some middle ground so we may try to stop what appears to be much pointless conflict.
From this stems Ethical Relativism, where a society may be tolerant of other ideas, customs, and traditions so as to not cause more of these conflicts. It is more complex than just tolerance, though, as a society that is completely tolerant may loose all of its own traditions to outside culture, and a culture which is not tolerant enough will not find this middle ground which is part of the goal if Ethical Relativism.
(OPINION) A question I wish to address in ethical relativism is why a society judges what they do as good or bad, right or wrong. Is it because it is the best system for that society towards any particular ends, or merely a belief in an absolute moral code for whatever reason? If it is for the purposes of what is best for a society, or a similar reason then I believe some ethics may be multicultural, or even universal. In this we can look at the examples of a deontological imperative of a ban on murder. Some things are ethical because they are necessary. As for the other cause and, or origin of many laws and moral beliefs religion and other local views may be similar. I believe that the myriad compilation of memes that makes up the structure of a society, by its laws and ethical views, is in itself a necessary thing for a society's existence, regardless of what its actual ethical beliefs and memes are. This means a multi-faith and single faith society may have severely different specific beliefs but the beliefs and laws that they have set in place often were created for and fulfill many of the same goals, such as keeping its citizens from killing, or stealing from each other. It is the method of these laws that, I believe, most often differs in societies. For example most of those in American culture believe that unfaithfulness in marriage is a bad and unethical thing, but does not condone the act of female circumcision to prevent it.
The point here being that I believe some of a societies' beliefs may be judged based off of their function in the society. If a society's laws are in place to sustain and further the community towards a particular end, they can be judged by how well the society endures, or succeeds towards those ends. In this way there may be universal necessities which may be seen as ethical, and judged based on that. What is right for a society at one time may not be right for another society or the same society at a different time, but by doing what is best for a society at the time, they would be doing what is ethically right, at that time. In this a society may have transition periods where they change for the better, but the previous system may have done just a good a job at maintaining the society up until the transition, as the new form provides.
I believe there is something to looking at our societies taboos and looking into their origins and function and trying to figure out why they exist. Is our outlook on some acts because of what they cause? Or is it impacted by the United States having been originally colonized by puritan Calvinists. If there is not a worthy reason to have a social taboo I can see it as a restriction.
Ethnocentricism. Most societies view their own society as superior to other societies. Those that do not, see themselves as just one of many societies that exist, no better or worse than those other societies. Because of this they may adopt the values and practices of other societies. This allows them to remain mutable and approach changes with much better success than some other cultures. For example many cultures in the world have been westernized, while others resist strongly to a change to their traditional ways and culture. Some of these countries suffer in their relations with other states, especially western or westernized states, and with their own citizens who as dissidents want westernization.
