As humanity continually struggles to find support for thinking and behaviors, it turns to ethical theories that justify or explain these critical concerns. There is no limit to the subjects addressed by these theories, which have evolved over thousands of years. At the same time, they appear to meet a specific human need; namely, identifying what is right and wrong for the individual and for the society. Natural Law Theory upholds the attractive idea that there are certain moral truths which are absolute, and because they derive from nature itself (IEP, 2018). Conversely, Relativism asserts that morality can only be understood by how an individual or culture perceives it. The truth of one person, in plain terms, is not the truth of another. In the following, comparison of the two theories reveals that they are not necessarily different, and because even Natural Law Theory relies upon the same, subjective understanding of morality that supports Relativism.
Similarities and Differences
If any single quality is shared by the two theories, it is the determination to identify how human morality exists, so that people and cultures may proceed with an understanding of right and wrong. Natural Law, as noted, depends upon a kind of evidence as support. As Aquinas states, human beings are creatures gifted with reason, so it follows that their behavior must be guided by reason. For Aquinas, in fact, human law must follow natural law if it is to be valid (IEP, 2017). There are variations in Natural Law Theory, but it generally holds to the belief that there are universal realities no rational being can ignore. Relativism is more complex, in that there are degrees of rightness depending upon the circumstances. It is possible, for example, to believe that an action is morally wrong, but still accept that it is morally right for the person or the culture (Vaughn, 2014, p. 30). This theory deals with multiple variables and conflicts, but the central issue is in separating ideas of absolute morality from the greater truth of morality as inherently subjective. Still, Relativism is in place to offer credibility for how people act, or an explanation that eliminates ideas of immorality because they do not apply in a relative world. Both theories share an intent to clarify, and to some degree support, how human beings act.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Relativism and Natural Law Theories".
Another issue linking both theories lies in convention, or usefulness. More exactly, as each theory has both followers and detractors, neither actually provides the unified thinking wanted by humanity. With Relativism, there is an answer, but it cannot be satisfying because it is so variable. If a moral truth is valid in one circumstance but not another, morality itself becomes less meaningful. Natural Law is also weak in terms of utility, and because applications of it reveal flaws in the determining of what is fundamentally “natural,” or right. For example, even Aristotle defined differences between pure natural law and that which serves the state and the society, and because the demands of a society often translate to minimizing the individual rights provided when natural law is accepted (Corradetti, 2009, p. 115). In a sense, this then relates to how both views are subjective, or rely on subjective understandings of morality. Relativism upholds this as primary, but Natural Law also depends upon how the person interprets what is “natural,” or alters the idea to suit the needs of the self or the society.
The above notwithstanding, the main difference between the theories is in how each responds to moral absolutism. To some extent, Natural Law requires the acceptance of moral realities that exist no matter the interpretation. This is the theory in its most theoretical form and it is easily challenged. Human reasoning, for example, is not a fixed or universal reality in itself, as rational people may arrive at different conclusions regarding the same subject. Conversely, Relativism discards ideas of universality, and insists that all morality is decided by how a person or culture perceives the action or thing. There is no solution here, but there is logic. For example, tolerance is usually understood as a rational idea shared by all. However, tolerance itself is a specific relative value, and cultures both promote and deny tolerance depending in their individual male-ups (Vaughn, 2014, p. 36). The Natural Law supporter would argue that human reasoning demands tolerance, yet that is by no means a conclusion reached by reasoning people who believe tolerance is, in some cases, wrong. The primary point then remains that the two theories differ in fundamental ways, even as they share the unfortunate inability to provide humanity with a moral theory right for all.
Conclusion
It is easy to believe that some values are universal, or so deeply ingrained in human thinking, they are accepted by all as truths. This would then support the idea of natural laws and, in a sense, relativism as well. Relativism may allow for variations in thinking and belief, but it is reinforced if certain ideas may be universal. Unfortunately, this is not the reality. Natural Law struggles to identify forces of nature supporting how actions are right or wrong by virtue of how they conform to nature, but human reasoning alone is too subjective for this to succeed. Then, subjectivity lies at the heart of Relativism, which distances it from Natural Law in a technical sense, and that subjectivity eliminates any real value in the theory as enhancing humanity and morality in general. Ultimately, both Natural Law and Relativism theories are not completely different, and because even Natural Law Theory depends upon the same, subjective understanding of morality that Relativism promotes.
- Corradetti, C. (2009). Relativism and Human Rights: A Theory of Pluralistic Universalism. New York, NY: Springer.
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). (2018). Natural Law. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
- Vaughn, L. (2014). Beginning Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
