Ethical relativism is the view that the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist in a vacuum. According to ethical relativism, morality is not an inherit feature of the universe, but is a matter of subjectivity and individual impressions. Due to this, one person’s moral values are no greater than or less than anyone else. Since one person’s moral standards have no warrant a part from their private convictions, what determines right or wrong for a particular culture becomes a matter of majority rule (Parfit, 1984). For example, on ethical relativism, if the Nazis were triumphal during World War 2, society would regard the Holocaust as being a morally just, rather than a morally bankrupt, episode within world history.
America is a secular nation, meaning no religion reigns supreme over another. Rather, cultural values are shaped by the greatest fraction of constituents or ‘people’ that comprise the fabric of American Democracy. While Christians are that largest sect that comprise the American culture, their exist many subgroups, including Gays, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists among others. America as a whole, at least historically ,was intended to consist of individual states which reigned supreme over the federal government and could determine their own laws. Due to this, the laws of the American land are not transparent from one state to the next (Harris, 2010).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Ethical Relativism Essay".
Corruption is an ambiguous term because, by the very nature of relativism, their cannot be a universally transparent definition. However, there are multiple classifications that have been more or less agreed upon which capture our moral intuitions about what corruption consists of. These include bribery, clientelism, embezzlement, fraud, nepotism, and rent-seeking.
According to these definitions, the health inspector was corrupted. Amongst the classifications highlighted earlier, the behavior of the health inspector falls within the concept of bribery. This is because, rather than abiding by the rules of his job, the health inspector took an offer that violated his socially constructed duties for personal benefit. Due to this, this kind of behavior best reflects the concept of bribery.
This situation could have been handled better on ethical relativism, since the manager and health inspector only comprise a fraction of the entire restaurant. Not only does the actions of the health inspector and manager affect the health of the employees, but the customers as well. Therefore, if the bribe was taken up on a vote and the majority of the employees within the restaurant decided against it, the bribery would not prevail. However, by the same token, if the majority decided that the behavior was socially acceptable then, at least on relativism, their would be no ‘truth’ outside the majority rule that could help determine whether the bribe between the manager and health inspector was right or wrong.
The question as to whether this kind of behavior is regarded as ‘normal’ on relativism is nebulous. One way of interpreting this question would be, is this kind of behavior common in society? In response to this question, the answer is most certainly yes. However, another way of interpreting the question would be, do most people view this kind of behavior with a sense of moral turpitude? Again, the answer to this question is most certainly yes. Therefore, there is a distinction between moral sense versus moral action, actions versus words so to speak—both of which cancel each other out on relativism. As a corollary, ethical relativism is neither good nor evil, it just ‘is’, since concepts of right and wrong are merely useful fictions which do not receive any purchase outside personal bias. On this approach to ethics, corruption can shrink or grow exponentially, depending upon the nature of the individuals in charge (Singer, 2001). Without some sort of absolute constraint outside majority rule, nothing is without limits.
As referenced earlier, America is a multicultural community with many different sects that impact the majority rule. Even though some of these sects are small, they can still have an affect on the whole. In the same way in which the behavior of a single particle can effect another particle which in turn, creates a domino effect that transcribes across the universe, so too can minorities create ripples that transcribe across the fabric of American Democracy.
For example, in public schools, one religion is not allowed to reign supreme over anyone else. This does not mean prayer is not allowed within public schools, only that prayer of one religion cannot be enforced onto students by school officials. Although America is a nation that largely consists of Christians, this does not give them the right to enforce their beliefs on everyone else in a public sphere. This is because we live in a secular society which is intended to protect religion rather than suppress it. For example, if Hinduism were to become the prominent religion in American culture, secularism would prevent this religion from being enforced on Christian students in public schools who do not share that religion. Therefore, even small groups in America such as atheists or agnostics, can influence the policies of the nation.
The question as to whether the ethics of Kant, Mill and Aristotle are better than relativism is a self-defeated question, since these moral theories actually purport that concepts such as ‘better’ and ‘right’ exist. Therefore, from a moral point of view, of course an ethical system that believes in the reality of moral truths which are embedded in a solid foundation are better, in any meaningful since of the term, than an ethical system that does not believe in the reality of moral truths which exist in a speechless void.
The problem with these competing moral theories is that they often yield conflicting moral results when applied in practice; however, what all of them do generally agree upon is that the consequences of actions matter and no one person’s rights are greater than or less than anyone else. Due to this, all three of these ethical theories are better at promoting justice and peace for two reasons. One, they actually believe in the reality of these terms and two, all people contain certain moral rights that must be considered for every situation. For example, the corruption of the health inspector could be deemed as morally wrong on utilitarianism because the actions negatively impact the health of the employees and customers. The bribe could be regarded as wrong on Kantian ethics because the manager and health inspector are treating on other as a means to an end.; whereas the bribe can be regarded as wrong on Aristotelian ethics because both men are not acting in accordance with various moral and intellectual virtues relative the nature of the individual. Thus, it is consideration of these points in which objective moral theories reign supreme over the defaults of relativism.
