Relativism in Ethics.
The most radical form of relativism considers the claim that moral standards are relative to each
individual. However, it seems this kind of radical relativism is incoherent, because it means that
every moral standard is equally good. If I think it’s okay to rape and pillage, but you think it’s
wrong, then all we can say is that it’s right for me but wrong for you—end of discussion. It
follows that nobody could ever be mistaken about right or wrong; but if nobody can be mistaken
then nobody can be right either. You end up with moral nihilism, the position that there are no
moral standards.
Many people are willing to take cultural relativism, the view that different societies have
different moral beliefs, more seriously. One reason is that this seems to be a lesson we have
learned from anthropologists that have studied the different belief systems of different societies.
The relativists not only claims that different cultures have different moral values, the claim is
that there is no authority independent from a cultural context that can say what is right and
wrong. So, if I claim that cannibalism is wrong, all I’m really saying is that in the culture I come
from cannibalism is unacceptable. There is no basis for saying anything more that it’s wrong for
us but they, the cannibals, think it’s okay in their society. The example of the Samurai custom of
trying out one’s new sword on a wayfaring stranger is an example of such a problematic.
Midgley is arguing that it’s wrong to assume that cultures are so isolated from each other that
there are no common values that can be appealed to. Therefore it’s also wrong to assume that if
you truly come to understand a foreign culture you will also come to endorse their values. Even
if I have to live in a foreign culture to fully understand it, it doesn’t mean that I have to accept
the prevailing values. I can understand and know the moral code without necessarily accepting it
or endorsing it .
The relativist position has a number of other problems. 1) If we are critical of the moral rules of a
different culture we don’t just base our criticism on the fact that we have different rules in our
society, we are willing to give reasons why we believe they behave immorally. If you can’t
criticize any behavior as long as it conforms to the standards of a given society, then you
couldn’t be critical of moral standards within your own society either. But sometimes we are,
and sometimes traditions and norms are changed because we change our minds about what is
right and wrong. So just because certain standards are accepted in a given culture at some point
in time doesn’t mean those standards can’t be criticized and revised.
A further problem is that in a multicultural society there are different sub-cultures. So does the
relativist argue that each sub-culture has its own standards? What about controversial moral
issues where the population seems to be equally divided. If, according to some poll on Monday
51% is in favor of pro-choice, but according to a new poll on Wednesday 51% is in favor of prolife, then does that mean that abortion was morally permissible one day but morally
impermissible the next day after?
Opponents of relativism conclude that we have to reject moral relativism, because when we try
to justify our moral beliefs we give reasons and appeal to general moral principles and values
that aren’t specific to any particular culture.
Hence, many people reject relativism and try to find universal moral principles. Utilitarianism
and deontological theories are two such attempts.
Utilitarian and Deontological Theories
Two of the most important approaches to ethics are utilitarian and deontological (rule-based)
theories. Both theories attempt to explain the way we should act based on some very
fundamental principles. Rightly understood these principles should help us understand why an
action is right when it is right and why it is wrong when it is wrong. Even though you can find
ideas that are similar to the ones expressed by utilitarians and deontologists in the history of
ideas the two theories are usually associated with the philosophers who gave them their classical
formulation. Utilitarianism was mainly formulated as a general theory by 3 English thinkers,
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), and Henry Sidwick (1838-1900).
The deontological point of view received its classical formulation by the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
Utilitarianism.
John Stuart Mill defined utilitarianism in this way:
”The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals ”utility” or the ”greatest happiness
principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
Sidwick used this definition:
”By utilitarianism is here meant the ethical theory, that the conduct which, under any
given circumstances, is objectively right, is that which will produce the greatest amount of
happiness on the whole; that is, taking into account all those whose happiness is affected by
the conduct.”
There are some important things to notice about the principle:
1) You determine whether an act is good or bad by looking at the consequences of the action.
Hence utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory.
2) The consequences are evaluated based on a non-moral value – happiness. The question then
becomes what is meant by ”happiness”? The utilitarians differed slightly on this question.
Bentham defined happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. This position is often
identified as hedonism. John Stuart Mill sought to establish a hierarchy of pleasures and
argued that pleasure, or enjoyment, didn’t just differ in intensity, but also in quality. It is
probably more fruitful to think about happiness along the lines of well-being. A good act is
one that produces the most well-being for the individuals affected by the act, the act that
makes their lives go as well as possible.
3) Utilitarianism is universalistic, aggregative, and maximizing. The easiest way to see what
this means might be to compare utilitarianism to another ethical theory, egoism. Egoism is
also consequentialist and based on the idea that pleasure or happiness is the standard that the
outcomes of actions are measured by. However, the pleasure involved is only the pleasure of
the agent who does the act. The egoist tries always to maximize the amount of pleasure or
happiness for him/herself. In contrast to egoism utilitarianism takes into account
everybody’s interest equally, and it is aggregative because it combines the happiness and
unhappiness of every person affected by the act to determine the net balance of happiness
over unhappiness. The egoist only takes into account the happiness for one person, so it is
only concerned with the self-interest of the agent. Finally the utilitarian wants to maximize
the overall happiness for everybody, not just one individual. Bentham expressed this
egalitarian aspect of utilitarianism in his motto, ”Each to count for one, and no one to count
for more than one.”
Rule-based or duty-based theories.
The fundamental difference between deontological theories and utilitarian theories is that
deontological theories are nonconsequentialist. So, according to the rule-based theories, the way
we distinguish right actions from wrong actions is not solely by looking at the results of the
actions. Instead we have to look at the intentions and motives behind the action as well as the
principles, or rules, that inform the action.
For Kant it was important that moral principles were based on reason alone. Only in this way did
he think we could find principles that were necessary and universal in nature, that is, principles
that did not allow for exceptions and that were always true. In this way Kant thought it was
possible to eliminate everything that depended on particular events and weaknesses in human
nature.
Kant believed that nothing was good in itself except the good will. By this he meant that the will
to do good, as opposed to other things that might be good or desirable such as intelligence or
loyalty, could never be compromised or tainted. Intelligence is not good if you are an evil genius
and loyalty is not good if you are loyal to Adolf Hitler. The good will, or the intent to do good,
however, is always good in itself. If I jump into a lake to rescue a drowning child, my act is
morally good even if I don’t manage to save the child, because my intention was good.
By ”will” Kant understood the ability to act from a principle. A good action is the kind of act that
is based in the obligation to honor the right kind of principles, or put differently, they are actions
that are based in your sense of duty and respect for those principles. The most important of such
principles Kant called the categorical imperative. Kant used different formulations of the
categorical imperative. The two most famous ones are:
1) ”So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or the person of any
other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”
The second formulation says that you must always respect other people as ends. By this Kant
means that all human beings are rational creatures with beliefs, desires, hopes and aspirations,
and if you act in such a way that you use people exclusively for your own purposes, then you
disrespect their humanity and treat them as a means only. For example, if I’m deceitful or
manipulative, or if I force my will on others, then I’m treating them merely as a means, not as an
end. So my first obligation is not to treat others as a means only. Furthermore, if I respect the
rationality and autonomy (their right to make free decisions about their life) of others then I
respect their choices and try to help them realize their goals.
2) ”I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should
become a universal law.”
By ”maxim” Kant meant the principle that you base your action on. For example, if I promise
my friend that I’ll pay him back the money he just lend me next Friday, knowing very well that I
can’t keep my promise, then the maxim I’m basing my action on is the maxim that I intend to
break my promise. According to Kant I can’t will that this maxim becomes a universal law,
because if everybody did the same, then nobody would keep their promises and the practice of
making promises would become meaningless. If I always respect the demand that the principles I
act on should be a universal moral law, then moral principles do become categorical in the sense
that they hold always for everybody, no matter what the particular circumstances are.
Consequently, the truly good person always acts out of respect for the moral law; his intention is
always to do his duty. If it’s your duty to act in a certain way you must do it even though you
might not feel like it or you can come up with excuses not to do it.
It’s not easy to see exactly why Kant believes the two versions of the categorical imperative say
the same. Maybe this becomes a little clearer if you think about the correlation between
obligations and rights. If I treat others in such a way that I violate their basic human rights, then I
don’t respect their humanity and I treat them as less than human, as something I can treat any
which way I please. However, if I violate the obligations I have to others, then it certainly seems
I’m not basing my action on a principle that I can will to become a moral law, simply because I
would not want anybody to treat me in this manner. Even worse, if nobody respected anybody’s
human rights then we would live in a chaotic and barbaric society where it’s every man for
himself. So maybe there is a sense in which the two versions of the categorical imperative are
getting at the same thing.
If we compare the utilitarian and the deontological approach to ethics, it’s apparent that they will
evaluate some situations differently. For a utilitarian there will be situations where you can be
justified in lying and stealing because these actions will bring about more happiness on the
whole than telling the truth and respecting property rights. A staunch deontologist will maintain
that such actions will involve a violation of your moral obligation and a violation of the
humanity of the person you lie to and steal from, hence you shouldn’t do it. This is the reason
many deontologists do not like the utilitarian approach, they think it’s too easy to find
circumstances where you can find reasons to violate important moral principles. Utilitarians, on
the other hand, find it absurd that you would want to cling to a principle when an alternative
course of action will maximize overall happiness.
Two Examples
Both approaches seem to capture some of our basic intuitions about how we determine what is
right and wrong. Hence, when the two approaches are at odds we face a dilemma. There are
many examples of such dilemmas. In class we discussed the scenario where my evil uncle owns
a factory in Mexico that violates a number of safety regulations, in fact, the chemicals that are
used are known to make the workers sick and in many cases cause them to die. My uncle turns
out to be ill himself (poetic justice), very ill. The disease he suffers from is terminal and,
furthermore, extremely painful. However, there is a silver lining, I’m his sole heir. At this point I
hatch a plan. I reckon that I can slip him a potion that will kill him, put him out of his misery so
to speak, without being detected. It will look like a heart attack. I feel pretty good about my
decision because I have done my do my utilitarian cost benefit analysis: my uncle is going to die
anyway but now he won’t suffer anymore; I will immediately see to it that the factory is safe for
the workers, preventing much grief and loss of lives; and I will get the red Ferrari I always
wanted. A substantial net gain in happiness all around. But, my uncle did not ask me to dispatch
of him! Even if I’m able to get away with it, I’m still a murderer. For a convinced Kantian this is
decisive. My uncle is not the nicest guy but that does not entitle me to treat him as a means to
ensure other people’s happiness. So, one theory seems to justify an action that is forbidden by the
other.
Another example, imagine that I have borrowed my neighbor’s shotgun. One night he wakes me
up, very agitated and visibly intoxicated. He rants on and on about his cheating wife and how
he’s going to show her etc., and demands his gun back. If I’m a convinced Kantian it seems that I
should oblige him if he persists with his demand. After all, I did make the promise that I would
return the gun whenever he asked to get it back. I realize that doing so could have disastrous
consequences, but if I didn’t intend to return the gun on demand when I borrowed it, then I fully
intended to treat my neighbor as a means only to satisfy my own desires and goals. Kant focuses
on my intentions and my good will, and what my responsibility is. Even if the consequences
could be dire my moral obligation is to keep my promises. For a convinced utilitarian the
situation is different. It’s permissible, maybe obligatory, for me to break my promise because it
is likely that doing so would produce more net happiness for all concerned.
Maybe it would be surprising if our moral intuitions about every conceivable situation could be
captured by a single moral principle. Nevertheless, both utilitarianism and Kantianism are
powerful attempts to base moral judgment on a basic principle that is both objective and
universal.