Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism. Randall Niles examines surviving standards of ethics and morality, relatively speaking.

What is ethical relativism? Relativism is the position that all points of view are equally valid and the individual determines what is true and relative for them. Relativism theorizes that truth is different for different people, not simply that different people believe different things to be true. While there are relativists in science and mathematics, ethical relativism is the most common variety of relativism. Almost everyone has heard a relativist slogan:

Whats right for you may not be whats right for me.

Whats right for my culture wont necessarily be whats right for your culture.

No moral principles are true for all people at all times and in all places.

Ethical relativism represents the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right or wrong. This position would assert that our morals evolve and change with social norms over a period of time. This philosophy allows people to mutate ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. Slavery is a good example of ethical relativism. Repeatedly the value of a human being is determined by a combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and rules that seemed to bring about the most benefit.

What is ethical relativism from a subjective view? Subjective ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to individuals. Whatever you believe is right for you personally is completely up to you to determine. Subjective relativism allows you to be sovereign over the principles that dictate how you live your life.

Conventional ethical relativism supports the view that the truth of moral principles is relative to cultures. Unlike the subjective view, what is right for you as an individual is dependant upon what your particular culture believes is right for you. This view supports the concept that whatever culture says is right for you really is right for you. The culture or society becomes the highest authority about what is right for each individual within that society. Conventional relativism places the individuals will subordinate to the will of the cultural majority.

Visit http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/situational-ethics.htm for a closer look at Ethical Relativism, Cultural Relativism, and other contradictory philosophies.

Also, go to http://www.RandallNiles.com/videos.htm to watch more videos on the subjects of Ethical Relativism and Situational Ethics!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ethical Relativism
• Situational Morals
• Situational Ethics
• Joseph Fletcher
• Cultural Relativism
• Moral Relativism
• Randall Niles
• You Tube
• Video

[37blahblah]

@ToxicOdiousOne haha thats the fun part about ethics. you can not be right or wrong as long as you can make up enough BS to sound good

[Hufflewaffle]

WHO SAYS there is no accountability in ethical decisions? You YOURSELF just summed up the survey with the words "as long as you're not hurting anybody" This IS moral accountability.

[cdog4100]

@variablast Well, yes. If I were suggesting a public policy regarding the consumption of pornography, I might consider the costs and benefits. A healthy sex life would be one of my considerations, perhaps balances against freedom of expression. And I am not attacking pornography, merely pointing at that ones inability to supply evidence in support of a claim does not mean the claim is false.

[cdog4100]

@playmaker0001 Your second clause is an incorrect conclusion. The alternative is that there might be a divine truth, but only god knows it. The rest of us are left to apply the current moral zeitgeist to assess the appropriateness of actions. And in any event, merely finding a conclusion unsettling is not a reason to reject the conclusion.

[cdog4100]

@playmaker0001 Answer: the person is judged by the societal values of the time and place in which he lived. Simple.

[cdog4100]

@playmaker0001 Even a cursory search of biblical stories reveals moral relativism. Very few people today believe that slavery is moral, and yet Jesus himself tacitly condoned slavery by providing instruction on how to properly be a slave.

[cdog4100]

@variablast well, while I agree that someone making a positive claim should produce evidence, simply because he cannot produce evidence doesn't make the claim false. I don't feel like googling, but I thought there was a study showing a correlation between increased consumption of pornography and unsatisfactory sex life. This does not stand for the "wife/daughter" argument, but it is something worth noting.

[cdog4100]

Hah, this is a funny video. It's as if Mr. Niles doesn't realize that moral/ethical relativism is an observable fact. In fact, his angst regarding traditional liberal morals v. traditional conservative morals is ALSO in the psychological literature. John Haidt has a great discussion regarding this fact. Mr. Niles falls in the camp that privileges organization and structure over individualism. What's neat is that both are necessary.

[kiante9]

You have a good point there. Still, perhaps it's because of intent. Jesus' intent wasn't to destroy Himself, that was the means to a much greater good. It was a sacrifice, not just destroying Himself out of stupidity or selfishness.

As for your other comment about pornography, I'm not sure what you mean.

[NevilleRhysBarnes]

Also, Niles argues that pornogrpahy is destroying our culture. Really? Where is the great stage play, the great movie, the great book, the great TV show, the great opera etc., that does not exist because of pornography on the internet?