In hmolscience, moral relativism, aka situational ethics, moral relativity, ethical relativism, “ethical relativity” (Westermarck, 1932), or , refers to the premise that “morals” are relative to the state of the system; the belief that no ‘thing’ is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period. [1]
Darius anecdote
In 500BC, Persian king Darius (c.550-486BC), as told by Herodotus (450BC), asked some Greeks at his court if there was any price for which they would be willing to eat their dead father’s bodies the way the Callatiae did (note: custom practiced on the island on Bali). The Greeks said nothing could induce them to do this. Darius then asked some Callatiae who were present if they would ever consider burning their fathers’ bodies, as was the custom among Greeks. The Callatiae were horrified at the suggestion. Herodotus sees this story as vindicating the poet Pindar’s dictum that “custom is lord of all”; people’s beliefs and practices are shaped by custom, and they typically assume that their own ways are the best. [2]
Overview
In 1906, Edward Westermarck, in his The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas, gave example, from different cultures, to attack the various preconceived ideas about morals, e.g. that morality is located in the “will”. [3] He followed this up by his Ethical Relativity (1932), cited by Samuel Holmes (1946), wherein he attacked the idea that moral principles express objective value, writing "I am not aware of any moral principle which can be said to be self-evident," and asserting that (no) "moral statements are anything more than the opinions of those who express them." [4]
In 1956, Judson Herrick, in his The Evolution of Human Nature, gave the following situational ethics view: [5]
“Nature as a whole is unmoral according to human codes of ethics, but it is not immoral. Only a man can be immoral, and what he regards as immoral varies with his culture. In some communities the murder of incompetent seniles is a moral duty, and in some ‘civilized’ communities of today genocide involving ruthless extermination of millions of innocent and competent people has been defended as morally acceptable by a large number of people who boast of a superior ‘Kultur’ [culture]. The world is not mad. It is only some of the people in it who are mad. The world is orderly, and even human madness is lawfully ordered, having causes and consequences which can be discovered and ameliorated.”
(add discussion)
Kanawha County | Situational ethics
In 1974, during the Kanawha County textbook controversy, one textbook included a story of a child cheating a merchant out of a penny. Students were asked:
“Most people think that cheating is wrong. Do you think there is ever a time when it might be right to? Tell when it is. Tell why you think it is right.”
Parents violently objected, believing these lessons were undermining Christian values. One parent, of an elementary school student, stated in obvious frustration:
“We’re trying to get our kids to do the right thing. Then these books come along and say that sometimes the wrong thing is the right thing. We just don’t believe that! The ten commandments are the ten commandments.”
(add discussion)
See also
● Objective morality
● Subjective morality
References
1. (a) Ethical relativism – Dictionary.com.
(b) Ethical relativism – Britannica.com.
2. Moral relativism – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
3. (a) Westermarck, Edward. (1906). The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas, Volume 1. Publisher.
(b) Westermarck, Edward. (1906). The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas, Volume 2. Publisher.
(c) The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas – Wikipedia.
4. (a) Westermarck, Edward. (1932). Ethical Relativity. Littlefield, 1960.
(b) Ethical Relativity – Wikipedia.
5. Herrick, C. Judson. (1956). The Evolution of Human Nature (abs) (pgs. 216-17). University of Texas Press.
External links
● Moral relativism – Wikipedia.
