In the modern world, morals have emerged to be a crucial issue. Regardless of the development in technology and different features in human life, modern society is troubled with wrongdoings, crimes, ruthlessness, and unethical decisions. Each day people take actions that impact them, and they often try to describe themselves as morally wrong or right. This point has leveraged the essential of understanding what is wrong and right, thus bringing morality to the lead of this particular search. The issue is that morality is not certain. Therefore, some people take it as objective while others are certain that morality is relative. Many philosophers have debated against and for whether morality is objective or relative and led to the concern of which side morality seems to be more plausible. Most philosophers have defined morals as beliefs or principles that regard wrong and right characters, behaviors, or manners. However, philosophers have categorized morals into various groups that are objective and relative. Even though morals differ from one individual to another, there is a global awareness for what is wrong and right, making morality neither relative nor objective but a blend of both relative and objective.
Moral Relativism
Moral relative is derived from the word relative, most philosophers maintain that all actions are right as per society or an individual. In this perspective, morals can neither be defined as wrong or right. This does not correspond that there are any particular defined good morals. Moral relativism is further classified into two groups that is subjectivism and conventionalism. Subjectivism is when morals are viewed in a way that wrong or right is a person’s decision which means that no one justified another person’s actions on whether the actions are morally right or wrong. 1 . On the other hand, conventionalism maintains that morals are only valid if they are acceptable by society and not accepted by individuals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
When it comes to philosophy, moral relativism reflects that every concern or issue has a right answer. In that perspective, an individual cannot be fixed to a situation and not bail themselves out of it. 2 . Rather, there is a solution or way out of any moral situation. Therefore, moral codes do not overlay since individuals can validate their actions without accusations of derailment or disrespect from decent morals. 3 .
In moral relativism, conventional morals have strong support because communal rules and morals bind, and they are upright. Also, every society worldwide usually defends its morals as ultimate over every other moral from any other society 4 . From this perspective, it is almost impossible for individuals to willingly abandon their beliefs
Furthermore, this expresses that each individual is correct in their way. It also means that when an individual does not believe or agree with a specific norm, it should not make that norm worthless, perhaps that individual is not right either. 5 . This argument clarifies that people differ in their reasoning and perspectives, which is highly influenced by their social differences and individualism. Simply, morals can be given subjectively than societal or individual liking may not correspond with other societies or rather other person's. This provides the reason as to why every society has its value..
From the conventional perspective, relativism has been presented with a more arguable base and the ability given to communities to develop rules and regulations to offer guidance to individuals. Through this, societies can establish laws that can judge individuals from that society that may go against the predefined morals. Unlike conventionalism, subjectivism can be complicated to control, leading to a state of disorder and lawlessness.
Unreasonable freedom of choice allows individuals to choose what they think fit to do even if it is not acceptable to other individuals or the community. 6 . For instance, someone can kill, while in the real sense, taking away someone's life is morally wrong. However, the person can justify the act grounded on the status of morality, whereby they may inquire about the morals under which the society may judge the action. This is due to no rules and regulations to judge the person given the freedom granted to people to do what they deem as wrong or right by moral subjectivism. Diversity in cultures is the primary factor contributing to variation in the application of principles. This is because every culture has their own way to doing things, culture, and believe.
Criticism of Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is as well subjected to criticism, starting with its definition. If every culture varies in norms, then people will not be able to realize what is wrong and what is right. Consequently, people cannot point out if their beliefs are objectively wrong or not. There is a need for various universal standard objectives that societies will be compared with the relative standards to determine whether they are right or wrong. 7 . If such contrast cannot be outlined, then morality cannot be surviving. Also, the critics concerning relativism have made a standpoint that despite the variations in moral standards in a different place globally, people seemed to observe certain laws of wrong or right.
Critics from the relativism perspective criticize with a critical question: what criteria does society charges an individual? Considering that all behaviours and actions are morally accepted, some philosophers argue that conventionalism is on the way towards subjectivism. Additionally, even when conventional morals are valid for a particular society, the concern is how society can be defined. For example, two people collaborated in a murder of an individual, and that is a moral offense which they have committed; however, they would have committed the act in a societal setup. In that perspective, the two offenders can be justified grounded on moral relativism?
Moral Objectivism
Many philosophers view that people are guided by certain moral principles in moral objectivism regardless of their individuality and cultures. This is universal morality, and some of the morals are acceptable societies. Nevertheless, objectivism can be stationary, which means that some values are impossible to change or the universal perspective that is certain of the principles is fixed. In addition to that, the principles apply to every individual everywhere they are 8 . Also, some philosophers reason that codes of conduct are non-overrule able and can apply to every circumstance.
Arguments for Moral Objectivism
Moral objectivism is eventually in the present societies. Morals can connect all societies provided that the cultures can establish laws and morals that can bind a person irrespective of their values and cultural beliefs. In that concern, the authorities that are granted powers in making laws and regulations consider the people's beliefs and cultures of various societies. 9 . Those binding laws or universal laws from various societies change places with no difficulties in coping with the culture and values of the other place. Moral objectivism is not regressive or oppressive, but it is somewhat progressive to ensure a conducive environment for the healthy coexistence of people. Certain principles form fundamental morality, which includes basic and general, leaving the other persons and society grounded on their particular specific and beliefs.
According to Aquinas Thomas, morality is an universal issue that binds all people irrespective of where they are. Furthermore, he describes that the objective of a lawmaker is to guide men, people, to virtue. 10 . Laws are made to bring good quality of coexistence and hence the positive motive for everyone who makes laws. From the spirit of cohesion, human nature was installed by God, God’s action to develop His goodness from Godliness that being the essential or divine goodness of action, even though an action cannot or can be seen with a naked eye. Humanity is importantly and universally similar in the perspective of similarity of interests and needs. From such a point of view, people's actions are guided by predefined laws and regulations. 11 . Also, persons are responsible and accountable for their actions, and people develop their power of actions from the habits and acts but not the law.
Criticism of Moral Objectivism
The concept described by moral objectivism is inclined to a lot of criticisms. For instance, a married man has an affair that goes against universal moral belief. However, in most Muslim countries, a man can marry up to four wives and have mistresses. In their culture, this is considered normal and right, for it is the norm 12 . Additionally, it is difficult for different cultures with various religions, individuals, and environments to stick to the same laws. This may seem difficult if there are no universal standards to determine what is wrong and right. However, even when the perception is acknowledged, the set of the rule pertaining the morality be developed. A person bring up a certain culture that has impacted their opinion and decide what is best for another individual from a different cultural background is tough.
Societies in different parts of the globe have different tastes, preferences, and beliefs that govern them. Some laws and regulations from some societies can be oppressive to the people and others; all these is to ensure that there is equality in that societal set up. 13 . However, laws can be made in a certain society. They can be found to provide peaceful coexistence also in other different communities, only for another community to find those laws to be punitive. Diversity affects variations in laws and cultural values influenced, criticize moral objectivism.
Conclusion
Various philosophers argue that the two categories of morality do not exhibit thin boundary. Most philosopher associates one category of morality to be more extreme than the other. The main aim of law-making is to allow individuals to co-exist peacefully. Therefore, the law guides people's behaviors and provides the basis for judging if the person does not comply with the rule of law. In that perspective, philosophers reason that it is quite good for someone to be neutral rather than being on the other side.
Since in some cases, morality is relative, and in others, it is objective. Human nature has copied in people various beliefs that make all identical across all countries, cultures, and within each person. From the example, Muslim men are allowed to marry more than one woman, and in other cultures, a man is allowed only to marry one woman and never cheat on the woman. This example reflects cultural relativism, and one can also identify traces of cultural objectivism.
Bibliography
Baghramian, Maria and Adam, Carter. Relativism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2017), 16-31. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/relativism/
Corradetti, Claudio. Beyond Moral Relativism and Objectivism. In: Relativism and Human Rights. Springer, Dordrecht. 2019, 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9986-1_2
Geoff, Sayre-McCord. "Moral Realism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . 2017 ed. 3, 32-39. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/moral-realism/ >.
Hagop Sarkissian. Aspects of Folk Morality: Objectivism and Relativism. A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. 2016, 211-226. DOI: 10.1002/9781118661666.ch14
Miyata, Ainar. The case for Moral Objectivism: A Moorean Odyssey through Metaethics. Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas. 2015, 12-33. https://www.duo.uio.no/
