According to relative ethics, moral "standards" depend on the individual or a society. If different people make different ethical judgments, they have different ethical values. According to relative ethics, if I believe strongly that it is okay to do one thing, and another believes strongly that it is not okay, we are both right and there is no objective truth. But what happens when this is applied to simple examples? If I strongly believe that a blue cube is in fact a yellow sphere but my friend tells me, "No, it's a blue cube", what does it mean? Does disagreement indicate loss of objective reality?
Is it even possible to live by relative ethics? I would say not. Here is a list of a few things that pure relative ethics does not allow a person to do:
1. Accuse others of wrongdoing. If it is right by them then it's okay.
2. Complain about mistreatment.
3. Blame others for anything.
4. Accept moral praise or take responsibility for any actions, good or bad.
5. Improve morality. If there is no set standard then there is no definition for improvement.
6. Say "it's wrong to be judgmental".
7. Hold meaningful moral discussions. So many decisions made by our government are based on ethical discussions that would not exist were we to live by ethical relativism. We could still discuss ethics, but the conversation would be pointless because without an objective ethical standard no end could be reached.
8. Determine what is right and what is wrong. There is no such thing.
Without objective truth, our society would fall into utter chaos.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You have exposed the deadly weakness of both subjective and conventional ethical relativism. Ultimately, either system is completely untenable. Well reasoned!
Post a Comment