Ethical theories are an essential part of understanding ethics and related decision-making processes. These theories represent the perspectives from which individuals seek guidance as they make decisions. Each theory underscores different points, such as decision-making style and rules. For example, the theories help predict a decision's outcome while also influencing an individual's duty to others, therefore defining what they consider an ethically correct decision. With the understanding of ethical theories' role, one must appreciate that people do not make decisions in the same way, using the same information and employing similar decision-making rules. Two widely used ethical theories are relativism and natural law. As indicated above, the two theories differ in their application as informed by their individual perspectives, decision making styles, and rules.
Natural law theory posits that people possess innate values that guide their reasoning and behaviors. From the perspective of natural law, the principles of right and wrong are inherent in people. They are not influenced by society or any other institution, such as the courts ( Leichsenring 388 ). Thus, the theory implies that a person is born with the knowledge that governs their decision-making processes and behaviors. A child born today will have unique values that will inform its knowledge about ethical conduct. However, it is important to note that the natural law theory is universal in nature, and thus the values that shape one's morality are shared. Due to the universality of these values, they form the basis of a society's perspective morality. People are also not taught natural law, but they discover it by consistently making decisions between right and wrong ( Leichsenring 388 ). For example, from an early age, a child will begin to decide how to behave in certain circumstances.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Differently, the ethical relativism theory postulates that one's morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. According to this theory's central principle, there are no moral absolutes because right and wrong are influenced by social norms ( Bajrami , 2019 ). Moral values are functions of an individual's societal norms, which implies no universally valid moral claims. Ethical relativism proposes that there are no universal measurements for people’s beliefs and knowledge about morality. Based on the central ethical relativism claim, one will find that some societies will condemn some practices while others will find these norms acceptable. For instance, infanticide, polygamy, and abortion are not tolerated in some, while other societies do not view these practices as morally wrong. Such differences make one to acknowledge that morality is merely a matter of cultural taste. Thus, the theory of ethical relativism and universal law theory differs from each other on the central concepts.
Human nature is the foundation on which the natural law is established and significantly influences an individual's morality. For human beings to flourish, they must heed the moral law, and that human nature cannot be truly undermined by any system of morality ( Seattle Pacific University, 2015 ). Therefore, one can theorize that a decision is right if it promotes human beings' thriving. Consequently, this implies that laws of ethics are universal because they are predominantly influenced by human nature. However, this supposition does not mean that people are always inclined to doing what is good, but one must recognize that becoming a good person requires significant effort. Also, any credible, ethical system necessitates that individuals make some sacrifices for others, especially during the journey to being morally upright ( Seattle Pacific University, 2015 ). Concerning this, natural law theorists have not explained how such sacrifices are compatible with both the principle of universality and human flourishing. Inversely, the theory of ethical diversity is significantly shaped by the principle of moral views diversity ( Saint Peters University, n.d. ). Given that human beings continue to have divergent opinions about moral issues, they will hold different moral views. This claim reflects the earlier position that there are no objective moral truths but only subjective moral beliefs.
From the natural law viewpoint, the good always precedes the right, which stems from the idea that good deeds are necessary for human flourishment. Although this is also a key principle, natural theorists do not have a consensus on which goods are important for the flourishing of humanity ( Seattle Pacific University, 2015 ). However, one can deduce that all human beings deserve a good life, health, relations, knowledge, peace, and pleasure. An important principle is seeking good for all humanity's benefit, which, however, creates a need for more specific laws to guide diverse situations. For example, in a given scenario, seeking a good such as “pleasure” may be incompatible with seeking another such as “knowledge." Also, in many situations, a person seeking good for their own benefit may conflict with another individual's good. Ethical relativism, on the other hand, is premised on moral uncertainty. In a given society and despite its constituents' best efforts, people are often unsure about what is the right thing to do, especially when one is in a dilemma ( Saint Peters University, n.d. ). In such a situation, one's judgment seems to be subjective because personal opinions play a significant role. According to natural law, the good must precede the right, while for ethical relativism, one's opinions, which can be subjective, informs their decisions and behaviors. Thus, for the latter, how one is socialized plays an important role in their moral inclinations. Under ethical relativism, there is no decisive way to settle many moral dilemmas, but under natural law theory, an individual understands that goods deeds must always precede what is right.
The natural law theory posits that through repeated decision-making, human beings are able to differentiate between what is right and wrong, while under the ethical relativism theory, situational differences are key in shaping one's morality. Under the natural law theory, the most imperative truths about morality are recognizable by human beings. Despite this principle, one recognizes that there is a collision between this theory and moral skepticism. Natural law theorists claim that all humans know the most critical moral truths ( Seattle Pacific University, 2015 ). However, this argument does not consider, for instance, mentally impaired people who may lack the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong. Besides, a child raised by a morally corrupt parent may have a deeply misguided idea about morality. It is understandable that most humans are capable of recognizing the most fundamental moral truths. As earlier mentioned, one recognizes moral truths, repeatedly gaining knowledge about good or bad, only through experience. Differently, the ethical relativism theory recognizes the influence of situational differences, which allow moral truths to be malleable ( Saint Peters University, n.d. ). As such, a person’s actions can be influenced by circumstances and not moral truths. People live and experience different situations. Therefore, it is illogical to believe that a universal set of rules can define how all people react when faced with a similar dilemma. Comparing the two theories, it is apposite to say that the natural law theory assumes that human beings base their decisions and actions on a specific set of rules. Conversely, the ethical relativism theory postulates that people will act according to the prevailing circumstances. Thus, it means that they can behave differently when faced with the same scenario but under different circumstances.
Although the two theories are significantly different, they have one similarity in that they are meta-ethical theories. Both ethical relativism and natural law theories attempt to understand epistemological, semantics, and metaphysical presuppositions of moral rules and principles ( McPherson & David, 2017 ). The theories involve a wide array of questions and puzzles, including how people view challenges involving making moral decisions. Theorists from both sides of the divide attempt to understand if moral decisions are a matter of truth or good. Also, the theories focus on the influence of culture on an individual’s morality. Therefore, the questions raised by theorists associated with the two theories lead to the need to define the meaning of moral claims, including the commitment of humans to the issue of morality.
In conclusion, the differences between ethical relativism and natural law theories are more pronounced than their similarities. Fundamentally, ethical theories are important because they understand why people behave in certain ways when faced with a moral dilemma. Generally, the natural law postulates that people are born with the ability to gradually discern what is wrong or right. Differently, the ethical relativism theory posits that an individual's morality is relative to the norms of one culture. These differing central postulates of the two theories define their departure when applying them to ethical scenarios. The second difference is that the natural law theory argues that morality is buttressed on human nature, whereby a person's morals cannot be undermined by any system of morality. According to this supposition, a decision can be right if it supports human behavior, which makes moral rules universal. However, the ethical relativism theory assumes a different perspective in that it recognizes the diversity of moral views. Third, the natural law theory's standpoint is that good must always precede right. This means that if an action is not right, but individuals understand that it is a good thing to do, they will forgo appearing morally right. The other difference pertains to the fact that morality under natural law is due to repeated decision making while ethical relativism recognizes the impact of situational differences. The only identified similarity between the two theories is that they are from the meta-ethics discipline.
References
Bajrami, S. D. (2019). Ethical Relativism and Morality. ILIRIA International Review , 9 (1).
Leichsenring, J. (2020). Natural Law Ethics. In Aristotelian Naturalism (pp. 387-402). Springer, Cham.
McPherson, T., & Plunkett, D. (2017). The nature and explanatory ambitions of meta-ethics.
Saint Peters University. (n.d.). What is Ethical Relativism? Saintpeters.edu. Retrieved 2 January 2021, from www.saintpeters.edu/faculty-development/files/2013/03/Ethical-Relativism-Full-Analysis.pdf.
Seattle Pacific University . ( 2015 ). “The Natural Law Theory of Ethics .” 1st ed., 2015, pp. 1-13, spu.edu/depts/philosophy/documents/NaturalLawEthics5-8-15.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2021.
