Download ETHICAL THEORIES OF RELATIVISM AND ABSOLUTISM and more Exercises Reasoning in PDF only on Docsity!
ETHICAL THEORIES OF RELATIVISM AND ABSOLUTISM
In this course we shall consider ethics from two main views, this are i. Absolutism view and ii. Relativism view Absolutism Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged , and that certain actions are right or wrong , regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral , regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe , the nature of humanity , the will of God or some other fundamental source. Moral Absolutism has been favoured historically largely because it makes the creation of laws and the upholding of the judicial system much simpler, and manifested itself in outdated concepts such as the Divine Right of Kings. Plato was a philosopher who argued in favour of moral absolutism and in ‘good’ that always holds its value. Absolutism might be associated with religious morality, but an individual can have an absolutist view of morality without being religious. For example, an individual might believe that slavery, war, child abuse and the death penalty are all morally wrong and cannot be justified under any circumstances. Many religions have morally absolutist positions, and regard their system of morality as having been set by a deity , and therefore absolute, perfect and unchangeable. Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes known as graded absolutism , wherein the case of a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one (God) exempts one from the duty to the lower ones (fellow humans or, still lower, property). Divine Command Theory is an absolutist meta-ethical theory that an act is obligatory if (and only if) it is commanded by God (William of Ockham argued that if God had commanded murder , then murder would indeed have been morally obligatory ). Sometimes, Moral Absolutism can mean the more extreme position that actions are moral or immoral even regardless of the circumstances in which they occur (e.g. lying is always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good, such as to save a life). In this form, it can be contrasted with Consequentialism (in which a morally right action is one that produces a good consequence or outcome, regardless of the intentions ).
The ethical theory of absolutism, or moral absolutism, is that there are absolute moral standards against which the morality of actions can be judged. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are recognised by objective standards that apply universally, to everyone. Other terms related to ethical absolutism include: Ethical universalism which describes the situation whereby all of mankind accept and live by the same basic ethical standards regardless of culture, race or religion. Ethical objectivism which describes the view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong but rather the pure facts irrespective of scenario.
Relativism The ethical theory of relativism rejects the absolutist view. It states that there is no objective or absolute moral truth, and there are no universal standards of moral behaviour. There are two aspects to relativism: Descriptive ethical relativism. This is the view that different cultures and societies have different ethical systems and cultures. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are concepts that relate to the particular culture. (There is no universal rule about right and wrong.). Normative ethical relativism. The beliefs or moral values within each culture are right within that culture. It is impossible to judge the values of another culture externally or objectively. Moral values of a culture can only be judged from within the culture. Religious relativism is an example of normative ethical relativism and maintains that one religion can be true for one person or culture but not for another. No single religion, therefore, is universally or exclusively true. Historical relativism is another example of normative ethical relativism and provides context for ethical views to vary over periods of time. For example the elimination of suspected witches or the widespread adoption of slavery in the past may not be acceptable in today’s society. Similarly Management, governance and ethics trends may move in the opposite direction – for example the liberalisation of clothing fashions or the changing role of women in society. Relativism accepts that ethical behaviour cannot be judged objectively. What is right and what is wrong can also vary according to circumstances.
KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
The six stages of moral reasoning and development
Lawrence Kohlberg is the most noted author in the area of moral development psychology, an American philosopher who developed a theory of moral behaviour, it was first published 1958. The theory described the stages of moral development through which individuals pass as they mature in their moral judgements. He explained the reasoning that makes individual make their decisions when faced with a moral dilemma. He argued that individuals go through stages in their moral development. He identified six development stages that an individual might go through, although most individuals do not go through all six in their life. According to him, a stage of moral development represents a structure of thought that is concerned with how judgment are made and why the judgement was made/ The six stages are progressive. a. Individuals start at Stage 1 and work upwards through higher stages as their life progresses. b. Each higher stage of moral reasoning is better at dealing with moral dilemmas than earlier stages. c. It is extremely rare for an individual, having reached one stage, to fall back to a lower stage of moral reasoning. d. However, individuals do not act at all times at the highest stage of moral development that they have reached. e. Individuals cannot ‘jump’ stages, or miss any stage of development. For example, an individual cannot go from Stage 3 to Stage 5 without first going through Stage 4. Kohlberg argued that the moral response of an individual to any moral dilemma or decision can be identified with one of the six stages. He divided the six stages of moral development into three levels, as follows. Level of morality Stage Pre-Conventional 1 Obedience and punishment 2 Self-interest: individualism and exchange Conventional 3 Inter-personal accord and conformity: good boy, nice girl attitude 4 Maintaining social order Post-conventional 5 Social contract 6 Universal ethical principles
Pre-conventional level of morality A pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is common in children, although it can also be found in adults. Kohlberg called this level of reasoning pre - conventional because individuals at Stages 1 and 2 do not yet see themselves as members of society, and their moral reasoning is based entirely on ‘self’. Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation At Stage 1, individuals judge right and wrong on the basis of the direct consequences for them of the actions they take. i. An action is bad if the individual knows that he (or she) will be punished for it. The worse the punishment, the greater the moral wrong. ii. An action is good if the individual knows that he will receive some benefit. The individual believes that there are powerful authorities who are able to give rewards and punishments for behaviour. Stage 2: Individualism and exchange At Stage 2, the individual (often a child) recognises that there is no single view of what is right and what is wrong. Different individuals have different points of view. Each individual is also free to pursue his or her own personal interests, and will therefore want to do what is in his or her own best interest. When faced with a moral dilemma, the individual’s decision is based on: ‘What’s in it for me?’ The individual might show an interest in other people, but only to the extent that other people might help to further his own interests. A typical view in dealing with other people is; ‘You help me and I will help you’. (‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’) Concern for others has nothing to do with loyalty to the other person, respect or wanting to help them. It is based entirely on concern for oneself. Conventional level of morality The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. When individuals think in a conventional way, they judge the morality of actions by comparing the actions with the conventional views and expectations of society. Stage 3: Good interpersonal relationships Individuals now enter society and see morality as more than making deals for personal benefit. They believe that they should live up to the expectations of family, friends and the community. They are aware of the approval or disapproval that they receive from other people, and try to live
because they are conforming to their group, not because they have reached their moral viewpoint individually. Stage 6: Universal ethical principles Kohlberg suggested that individuals very rarely reach Stage 6 of moral development. At this stage, moral reasoning is based on abstract ‘universal’ ethical principles. The individual queries the validity of laws, and considers that laws are only valid if they are based on justice. Individuals have an obligation to disobey unjust laws. An individual makes moral decisions because they are right, not because they are a means to an end, or because the action is legal or expected. There are universal principles of justice requiring that all people should be treated impartially, in an equal manner and with dignity. For example, it is morally wrong to vote for a law that helps some people but hurts others.
The Heinz dilemma Kohlberg used a number of fictional case studies involving a moral dilemma, to establish the stage of moral development and reasoning that an individual had reached. One of these case studies is called “the Heinz dilemma”, the case provide a good illustration of Kohlberg’s analysis. In this example, you should note that individuals at the same stage of moral development can reach differing views of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Kohlberg was interested in the moral reasoning that individuals use to justify their opinions, rather than the actual decision that they reach through their reasoning. The case study: The Heinz dilemma In this case, Heinz`s wife is suffering from cancer and close to death. There is one drug that doctors think might save her. This is a drug that a scientist in the same town has recently discovered. The drug is expensive to produce, but the price charged for the drug by the scientist is ten times its production cost. The scientist paid $200 to make the drug and was charging $2,000 for a small dose. Heinz wanted to buy the drug for his wife, but had very little money. He went to everyone he knew to obtain the money to buy the drug, but could raise only $1,000. He told the scientist about his wife’s medical condition and that he could raise $1,000. He asked the scientist to let him buy the drug at that price, or let him pay the rest of the money later. The scientist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and intended to make money from producing it. Heinz, in
desperation, broke into the scientist’s premises to steal the drug for his wife. The questions asked by Kohlberg were:
- Should Heinz have broken into the scientist’s premises to steal the drug?
- Why, or why not? Analysis of the case study For Kohlberg, it was not important what an individual would do in the situation faced by Heinz, but how he or she reached an opinion. The moral reasoning was more important than the decision or action that results from it. Examples of some of the arguments that might be used by individuals at each stage of moral development are set out below. **_Stage of moral development Possible reasoning
- Obedience and punishment_** Heinz should not steal the drug because if he does he will be put in prison. This would be very bad. Or Heinz should steal the drug. It only cost $200 and he offered to pay a lot more. He was only stealing the drug, nothing else. 2. Self-interest Heinz should not steal the drug, because if he does he will go to prison. Prison is a terrible place and he will suffer a lot if he goes there, more than if his wife dies. Or Heinz should steal the drug, because if he does he will be very happy, even if he has to spend some time in jail. 3. Interpersonal accord Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and Heinz is not a criminal. Or You can’t blame him. He did everything he could first without breaking the law. Or
b. Other critics have argued that Kohlberg’s views have a cultural bias, because his ideas are based on Western philosophy. His views might not apply to non-Western philosophies and cultures. c. Carol Gilligan (1982) argued that Kohlberg’s views had a gender bias, and were based on a male view of the world. Kohlberg argued that moral thinking is based on reasoning linked to a sense of justice – rules, rights and abstract principles. Gilligan argued that for women, morality and ethical views are not based on these concepts of justice, but on concern for interpersonal relationships and the ethics of care and compassion.
