Moral Philosophy
When asked to determine the defensibility of a moral theory, a person must look at who and how many people are considered in the belief. If only individuals or only certain groups benefit from applying the moral theory, then the perspective is not defensible. However, if a moral stance takes into consideration the majority and attempts to bring about the most benefit for most of the people in that majority, then it is defensible. I considered normative cultural relativism, ethical subjectivism (individual relativism) and utilitarianism. I concluded that utilitarianism is the most defensible because its aim is to bring the most pleasure to the most people and cause the least amount of pain for the fewest people. Cultural relativism only explains moral actions by attributing them to a difference in cultural beliefs. Individual relativism also only explains actions but attributes them to an even smaller segment of the population. Because utilitarianism aims at creating the most benefits for the largest group, it is the most defensible moral position.
Normative Cultural Relativism
Normative cultural relativism is one of the moral theories I considered. It holds that the ethics and values of cultures differ, and that one culture’s morality is not better or more important than another culture’s morality. Because relativism has been applied in many different ways by many different people to many different ideas, it is difficult to find consensus on what it means exactly according to Maria Baghramian and J. Adam Carter of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Relativism is often applied by those wanting to be open-minded and accepting of other cultures because it does not judge or rank moral claims that differ among cultures. Baghramian and Carter say, “The claim [of cultural relativists is] that the truth or justification of beliefs with moral content is relative to specific moral codes” (Bagharamian and Carter). While not everyone realizes that they are adopting a relativist attitude, when a person accepts differences in morality and chalks it up to differences in culture, that is moral relativism.
People often practice moral relativism. When a grandparent, for example, shakes their head and wonders what their grandchildren see in a particular musical artist, but dance along with them anyway, that is moral relativism. The grandparent does not think the language of the song is appropriate perhaps, or that the beat is particularly appealing, but their grandchild really likes it and that is important to the grandparent too. There is not result except for the grandparent to rationalize why he or she does not like the music and decide to accept it because he or she loves their grandchildren.
While some may see cultural relativism as a legitimate method of viewing society, not everyone does. John Tilly writing in Ratio Juris explains that the problems some have with normative cultural relativism is that it is nearly impossible to reconcile that the theory is “clear, precise, and intelligible. . . is plausible enough to warrant serious attention [and] is faithful to the aims of leading cultural relativists” (Tilly 272). Tilly goes on to list several objections to the normative cultural relativism stance saying that it is not merely a rejection of ethnocentrism and the concept behind relativism is ethnocentrism in disguise because one culture’s thinkers are deeming every other culture’s morals acceptable simply because they believe this to be true (Tilly 274). For these reasons, I reject normative cultural relativism as the most reasonable moral position.
Ethical Subjectivism or Individual Relativism
Another moral theory that I considered is ethical subjectivism or individual relativism. This philosophy holds that whatever a person does is their choice and they must have reasons or causes for behaving this way. In other words, it is like cultural relativism only on a more specific basis. Individual relativism says that everybody’s life and perspectives are different and others should not judge the moral choices a person makes because their circumstances justify it. This view holds that there are no moral truths or standards because they differ based on a person’s individual view of morality. So, if I steal another person’s car because I needed to go somewhere and it was too far to walk, I would be justified in that action in the ethical subjectivist’s point of view. Obviously, the owner of the car would, from the subjectivist point of view, think that they paid for the car, they have the title to the car, they did not give me permission to use the car, and that I am a thief. Unfortunately for me, the police would agree and arrest me for car theft because the society in which I live does not think in ethical subjectivist ways. Morality is predetermined and citizens must conform or face the consequences. This moral perspective is also not the most reasonable either.
Utilitarianism
The third moral position I considered is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the theory that actions are moral if they benefit the majority. The outcomes of action are the only way to determine the morality of the action. Because this moral theory moves beyond the individual or cultural perspective and considers the majority, this is the moral theory that seems the most rational and justifiable to me.
Jeremy Bentham first described the principle of utilitarianism and later John Stuart Mill contributed to the philosophy also. According to Robert Cavalier of the Carnegie Mellon Philosophy Department, the main tenets of utilitarianism include the recognition of both pain and pleasure as a part of life. Because there is pain and pleasure in life, moral action should aim to produce the most pleasure for the most people and the least pain. Bentham even created a formula that attempted to quantify pain and pleasure. Mill streamlined the philosophy by saying that it was not the amount of pleasure but the quality of it that should matter to utilitarians. He also thought formulating abstract ideas of pain and pleasure was not rational. Mill said that utilitarianism is based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” (Cavalier). Utilitarianism can be applied to individual acts (act utilitarianism) or to general rules and policies (rule utilitarianism).
An actual example of when utilitarianism should have been applied and was not was when the Mekong River was dammed in China. Millions of people lost the land that had been in their families for centuries. Many also lost their livelihoods and lived in abject poverty after the dam was constructed. The dam was built to accommodate an irrigation scheme that, by the time the dam had been completed, was outmoded and no longer used. The people who constructed the dam should have looked ahead to see that new innovations in irrigation were going to make the dam obsolete, but they did not and more people were caused pain than were caused pleasure through their unethical reasoning. This example implies one of the disadvantages of utilitarianism: one cannot be certain if the outcome will cause more pain or pleasure until the action is complete. Utilitarianism also makes it difficult to have moral absolutes such as murder is wrong. If a person can be murdered and somehow bring pleasure to at least two people, then from a basic utilitarian standpoint, that murder is justified. However, no one really believes that.
Moral Argument
Utilitarianism is the most defensible of the three moral theories discussed because it offers the best justification for holding a particular stance. Relativism whether it is cultural or individual excuses behavior based on a moral stance rather than justifying it. Utilitarianism may not always have the best results, but actions committed in the name of utilitarianism have solid reasoning behind them and the consideration of the most people. When policies are made from a utilitarian perspective, they consider the majority rather than separating individuals out to benefit from the policy. Of course, that can then lead to discrimination such as the long-term policies of discriminating against LGBTQ people. However, policies made from a cultural relativism perspective may consider an entire culture, but not acknowledge an individual perspective, which can then lead to discrimination too. Individual relativism can create chaos if everybody is just acting in any way they choose claiming their own moral perspective as justification. Utilitarian policies are usually predictive and with the information technology of today, it is reasonable that pleasure and pain can be quantified at least to some extent. With modern innovations such as artificial intelligence, humans can create models of the outcomes of particular actions (such as damming rivers) and make decisions based on utilitarian principles. Utilitarian policies can result in failure, but they do attempt to bring more pleasure to more people instead of just excusing actions because of differences in moral perspective.
Conclusion
Cultural and individual relativism may consider the perspectives of people who are different from me, and I can adopt that position on an individual by individual or culture by culture basis. It helps me to have empathy and provides understanding about issues I may not understand. However, when it comes to making policy, those in charge cannot govern by using these same perspectives. Relativism can come into play, and policies can be adapted that do not discriminate based on cultural or individual mores but they must consider the majority. Utilitarianism is the only one of the three moral philosophies that promote that, so it is the best of the three for the majority.
Works Cited
Bagharamian, Maria and J. Adam Carter. "Relativism." 11 September 2015. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 27 October 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/ent....
BBC. "Subjectivism." 2014. British Broadcasting Corporation. Web. 27 October 2019. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/in....
Cavalier, Robert. "Utilitarian Theories." 2002. Carnegie Mellon Philosopy Department. Web. 27 October 2019. http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Caval....
Tilly, John J. "The problem for normative cultural relativism." Ratio Juris 11.3 (1998): 272-290. Google Scholar. 27 October 2019. https://philarchive.org/archiv....
