Moral Relativism vs. Kantian Ethics

Question 1 

I agree that the central problem of morality is how to attain unity and order a moral system without denying individual freedom. The concept of moral relativism establishes the lack of unity on moral concepts. According to this school of thought, morality can be defined at the individual level and the group level (Lukes, 2008). This possibility of what is or what is not moral result in a dilemma especially where what a group considers moral conflicts with my understanding of the topic. For example, my sense of morality informs me that I should share with others, but the group moral discourages and warns me from doing that or I will suffer consequences. This example demonstrates an internal conflict over doing what the group wants or what I believe to be correct. 

Question 2 

I agree with Kant’s deontology. His theory of morality outlines a simple approach to an ethical question based on two main cornerstones. First, the theory postulates that one ought to do to others what he would have others do to him (Wood, 2007). This position covers both duties to self and others. Therefore, I would consider my actions by questioning what I would feel or how I would react if the same were done to me. The theory provides second criteria for judging an action, which is considering the impact that the act would have if it was made a universal law. For example, if I shared an item with a friend I would be happy if the same was done to me and if that were made a universal rule so that people share with others, it would be acceptable since it would create a satisfied society. On the other hand, if I stole from a friend and that was made a universal rule then it will hurt me if the same was done to me and many others would suffer from that rule. 

References 

Lukes, S. (2008).  Moral relativism. Picador. 

Wood, A. W. (2007).  Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press.