Relativism vs. Objectivism
The relativism/objectivism debate in philosophy is no different. Objectivists accuse all relativists of being subjectivists who seek ethical nihilism by claiming that morals are up to the individual; relativists accuse all objectivists of being absolutists who believe that all questions have only one right answer, regardless of context or culture.
We have seen that Relativism is the view that states that moral principles are valid, but they vary from to culture (conventionalism) or by individuals (subjectivism). Conventionalists like Ruth Benedict argue that since different cultures hold different principles, how can one judge another? Each of these different moralities is equally valid. She uses the argument from 'normality': each culture defines what behaviour is normal, to fit the behaviour of the majority. The majority of that population then defines normality and also lives by it, and only a small minority is aberrant or abnormal.
Benedict calls morality "a convenient term for socially approved habits" and the normal "a variant of the concept of the good." In other words, whatever behaviour is socially acceptable and normal is also good. Subjectivism is the extreme end of relativism. This view holds that morality is determined at the individual level, not a social or universal level. Thus, the only moral principles that are valid are the ones you believe in--in short, all principles are equally valid.
According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. Objectivism is the view that holds that certain moral principles are valid for all individuals and cultures. There are different levels of objectivism:
- The fixed view, which says that principles are fixed and do not change;
- The universal view, which includes the fixed view and adds that principles apply to all people everywhere; and
- The absolutist view, which includes the universal view and adds that certain principles are non-overrideable and true for all situations. People who hold this theory answer the question "where do these principles come from?" in several different ways: from the essence or commonality of human nature, from natural reality (moral realism), from God or the divine, or from the intrinsic good that comes from their application consequentialism).
The view of objectivism is based on the assumption that "human nature is relatively similar in essential respects, having a common set of needs and interests."
In Who’s to Judge, Louis Pojman addresses the ethical relativist’s argument. He explains the “Diversity Thesis” of relativism asserts morality varies depending on the society, resulting in there being no moral guidelines, independent of culturally established beliefs, shared by all societies.
The problem with the “Diversity Thesis,” according to Pojman, is there does appear to be moral guidelines common to many variant societies. For example, he quotes an article by Clyde Kluckhohn, which notes how “every culture has a concept of murder…other regulations upon sexual behaviour…mutual obligations between parents and children”. Additionally, argues Pojman, since there is a majority of different societies which do observe shared moral guidelines, then it could be argued the cultures which do not are simply wrong.
Pojman moves on to explaining the subsequent “Dependency Thesis” which asserts actions are deemed moral or immoral depending upon the cultural circumstances of the society. Regarding the “Dependency Thesis,” Pojman offers a distinction between morality being upheld based on the culture’s circumstances and morality being determined based on the culture’s circumstances. If morality is upheld based on the culture’s circumstances, according to Pojman, then an action may be considered immoral unless the greater good of the society requires the action be done. He uses the example of Eskimos with limited food who practice euthanasia. Whereas, he continues, if morality is determined based on the culture’s circumstances, then the beliefs of the culture determine right and wrong. He offers another example, where a Sudanese tribe will throw deformed babies into the river believing the babies “belong to the hippopotamus”. In either case, Pojman asserts there exists shared moral guidelines with our culture, which are independent of cultural biases, like respect for life and giving back what belongs to another.
Pojman also presents “Conventional Ethical Relativism, ”which asserts that actions are determined to be moral or immoral based on the acceptance of the actions by the society, which leads to tolerance of all actions deemed morally accepted by any society. “Conventional Ethical Relativism” fails as well because, as Pojman states, “Conventional Ethical Relativism” allows for tolerance of genocide and nuclear war, just as long as the culture committing the acts deems the actions morally acceptable. Additionally, Pojman notes, a person may belong to many cultures and subcultures which have different views on what actions are considered moral, resulting in the person’s actions being both moral and immoral at the same time.
