Moral Relativism

What is meant by a relativist ethical system?

All relativist ethical systems assert that:

1. One thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, taste or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint (e.g. the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language or a conceptual scheme).
2. Any standpoint is as equally valid as the others.

So, in ethics, generally all points of view are equally valid.

Distinction between moral and cultural relativism

Cultural relativism – this is only descriptive. Thus, the claims "x is considered right in Society y at time t" and "x is considered wrong in Society z at time t" can be seen to show cultural relativism. The claims of cultural relativism can either be true or false.

Moral relativism – this goes beyond observations and actually makes a postulate. Thus, the claim “what is considered right in Society x at time t IS right for that Society" comes to the conclusion that morality itself is relative.

Relativist ethical approach – Situation Ethics

Situation ethics is a system whereby the right moral behaviour can be different for different people according to their circumstances. It attempts to move away from a blind following of moral rules (i.e. Catholic Church teachings) and encourages people to think for themselves using reason and common sense. Thus it is relative and cognitivist, since it uses reason and common sense.

Situation ethics is primarily associated with the American Joseph Fletcher, but others before him, such as Soren Kierkegaard (19^th century) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1930s) emphasised the importance of freedom of choice. Their though was influenced by a general move in the 20^th century for people to have greater autonomy and freedom to think for themselves.

Fletcher wrote from a Christian prospective, but thought that morality was not only about following set rules indefinitely (e.g. 10 commandments), but was also about autonomy (taking responsibility for ones own actions). He strongly rejected legalism (following concrete laws), but also rejected its opposite, antinomianism (where there is no morality at all and no basis to judge actions). He attempted to find the middle ground.

Instead, he said that Christians should base morality on one singe rule: the rule of agape. I.e. in any situation, one must ask themselves: what is the most loving thing to do in this situation?

Fletcher rejected legalism on that basis that it leads people to do the ‘right’ thing regardless of the consequences. This he said went against Jesus’ command to show compassion. He said that Jesus was in fact a situtionist – this he concludes from stories in the Bible showing how he showed mercy to a woman caught in adultery instead of stoning her.

Fletcher based his ideas on the thinking of St. Augustine: “Dilige et quod, fac” – “love with care, and then what you will, do.” Agape love is not understood to depend on emotion, but rather, it involves doing what is best for the other person, unconditionally.

There are 4 presumptions of Situation ethics:

• Pragmatism – to be right, it is necessary that the proposed course of action should work. The end by which the success or failure of and thought or action is to be judged is love.

• Relativism – rejects absolutes such as “never”, “always” and “absolute”. Human beings are commanded to act lovingly, but how this is to be applied will depend on the situation.

• Positivism – recognises that love is the most important criterion of all. One interpretation is that since “God is love”, when you show agape love to people, you become a source or channel of God himself. Thus, you are carrying out God’s will on Earth free of choice.

• Personalism – demands that people should be put first.

There are 6 fundamental principles of Situation ethics:

1. Agape love is the only absolute good. Every thing else is relatively good.
2. Agape love is the principle taught by Jesus.
3. Justice will automatically follow from love, assuming that everyone follows the principle.
4. Love has no favourites, everyone is equally valuable.
5. Love must be a final end that people seek. It must not be a means to an end.
6. The loving thing to do depends on the situation – thus it is regarded as a relativistic approach to morality.

Strengths of Situation ethics

(i)                 People are able to take responsibility for their own moral decision making.

(ii)               Situation ethics provides a way for people to make decisions about issues not addressed in the Bible. I.e. birth control, genetic engineering etc.

(iii)             Situation ethics is based on the teachings of Jesus and so can be considered a Christian ethic.

Weaknesses of Situation ethics

(i)                 Pope Pius XII argued that Situation ethics was wrong to appeal to individual circumstances in an attempt to justify what clearly went against the teachings of the church. Situation ethics asserted that the individual was more important than the teachings of church and of the Bible.

(ii)               The approach can be said to expect people to have greater insight than most of us posses. How can you know what is the most loving thing to do? Also, no one can truly be objective in decision making.

(iii)             Situation ethics gives people too much responsibility. Most people want to be told what is right absolutely rather than deriving a conclusion themselves because they cannot always see what the best solution is.

(iv)              If two people using the approach arrived at different conclusions, it is impossible to judge which one is right, since there is no absolute.

(v)                Humans tend to be selfish.

Proportionalism

Situation ethics provides a corrective to taking the natural law approach literally. Some Catholic theologians have developed a middle ground between the extremes of Natural Law and Situation ethics, called Proportionalism.

Proportionalism suggests that there are certain moral rules that can never be right to go against, unless there is proportionate reason that would justify it.

E.g. If we start from the moral rule “do not kill”, the justification to the act would be euthanasia. In some cases, it is the most loving thing to end the life of a person to stop their suffering.