Determining what actions are right and wrong is a difficult task, especially when the terms “right” and “wrong” have varied contextual definitions. Is an action right if everyone else says it is? Is an action right if it benefits everyone else in the long run, despite negative short-term consequences? Relativistic theories state that a person or society’s sense of right and wrong comes from the opinions and beliefs the person or society holds. Objective theories state that there is a single, overarching framework by which to define what is right and wrong. Relativistic theories are often dismissed due to being difficult to work with; if everyone’s sense of right and wrong is based on personal opinions, including whether other opinions are correct or not, no one can say with absolute certainty whether an action is right or wrong. Objective theories, however, have their own problems, such as how to define “good”, “happiness”, “God’s will”, how many people to consider when determining the effects of an action, along with defining various other terms and quantities upon which objective theories rely. My observations indicate that while most people tend to follow one of the objective theories of morality, the theory an individual chooses, as well as how various terms used in each theory are defined, rely on subjective relativism.
Relativistic theories of morality seem to have the following problem: there is no concrete foundation by which to judge an action right or wrong. To many, this seems to indicate that relativistic theories can’t be correct. I, on the other hand, believe this outcome to be accurate. The inherent problem with objective morality is, namely, objectivity. For entity A to be objective about entity B, entity A must not have any connection with entity B, so as to remove any possible bias A may have in its observations and conclusions about B. When discussing what actions are right and wrong for humans as a whole to take, it is impossible for a human to be objective. While there have been attempts to get close to being objective, such as science and mathematics, all these systems do is rely on common observations, leading to the use of logical fallacies such as correlation implying causation and bandwagon appeal. Additionally, the process used by Descartes to reach the cogito ergo sum conclusion shows many ways in which an individual’s observations can be deceiving or mistaken. With a person’s own existence being the only sure fact in the universe, any attempt at reaching an objective perspective is futile. Therefore, an accurate, objective model for morality is impossible.
The failure of objective morality implies the success of some form of relativistic morality. However, the success of relativistic morality implies the lack of a concrete basis for determining whether an action is right or wrong. So why discuss morality at all? The motivation behind discussing morality lies not in its theoretical accuracy, but in its practical benefits to society. If a group of people wish to form a society, that society will need a common system of rules by which to coalesce, and a discussion of morality is in order. One question we need to answer is how those rules come into being. Why do certain societies believe it’s wrong to be homosexual, while others celebrate homosexuality? Why do some societies believe medical experimentation on animals is acceptable, while others do not? The differences between these societies resides in their respective beliefs.
The next question is where do those beliefs come from? While people don’t truly know anything beyond the question of their own existence, people do have a set of instincts, which stem from the desire to continue the species. This desire requires we act in order to survive, and actions done in pursuit of this goal would not work well if we do not have a sense of what promotes our survival and what does not. In some cases, we may have an instinctual sense of what helps us survive, such as holding our breath under water, but in most cases, we gain this insight through trusted sources. As children, this starts with parents teaching us about the world around us. As we have a strong instinct to trust our parents, we tend to trust their beliefs without question. As we age, we hear from other sources about their beliefs. Eventually, we find two sets of beliefs that clash, and we have to decide how to resolve this clash for ourselves. In many instances, we go with a bandwagon approach, choosing to adopt beliefs held by a larger number of people rather than risk being a minority. As we continue to age, we begin to make our own observations about the world and begin to question whether the information we previously believed accurate truly is accurate. The observations we make and the conclusions we draw from those observations all reside in a personal knowledge base, and we use this base to form our personal sense of morality. As we observe the world around us, we create general rules of conduct that, according to our own knowledge base, leads to a greater chance of survival of the species.
However, our environment, as well as the sources available to us, cause differences between our knowledge sets. For example, I believe that caring for the poor, specifically when they are not poor solely by their own doing, is important, as I was raised way below the American poverty line due to unfortunate decisions made by my parents. Other people, who may not have been raised this way, may see the suffering of my family as poetic justice. My own observations show that a person’s motivation will often times lead to a result consistent with said motivation, and that the motivation behind an act has higher moral significance than the act itself. While the number of lives saved by the medical knowledge obtained due to the holocaust may outweigh the number of lives lost in the holocaust, the motivations behind the holocaust are what makes it wrong in my opinion, while others may be more inclined to justify the holocaust with the end results. My knowledge base, as well as the bases for all other people, were formed from what we individually determined to be trustworthy sources. Many of the sources used to construct a knowledge base have much in common, such as similar diets, needs, abilities, and some environmental factors. This similarity leads to most people having a small but seemingly common set of morals, and seems to indicate a possible objective model for morality. Our sources, however, as well as our levels of trust in them, are not identical, and this separation leads to differences in our personal knowledge bases, leading to a subjective relativistic model for morality.
The next question is how do we resolve differences between individual knowledge bases in order to form a cohesive society? Usually, the parties involved in a disagreement share the information that contributes to their viewpoint with the other parties, hoping to convince the others of the correctness of their sources. Sometimes this is successful. Other times the opposite is true, where the other parties convince the first to change their accepted knowledge base. There are also times when an agreement can’t be reached, and usually the disagreement is downplayed in its influence or another, more easily agreed-upon issue is shown to be more significant. An example of this would be if a presidential candidate were to run for office vowing to remove corporate influence in the government but also vowing to make no attempt to further gay rights. While I find the removal of corporate influence in the government and the advancement of gay rights to be important, I believe removing corporate influence in our government is of more immediate concern, and will forgive the disagreement on gay rights in order to achieve a more pressing common goal. This debate and compromise process is what leads to a smaller set of morals that a society follows, ideally turning into laws and norms. This discussion of practical morality is central to the formation and maintenance of societies and civilization, and while the conclusions reached in such a discussion may not be theoretically accurate, they are close enough to be practical.
The distinction between what is right and what is wrong is the foundation of civilization. The lack of a feasible objective model of morality explains the vast differences between cultures and their beliefs, as well as why our species as a whole has not shown much progress toward a common core of beliefs. The subjective relativism model accurately reflects how we come to moral conclusions based on our surroundings, and keeping this model in mind is essential when judging whether another person or society’s actions are right or wrong. Communication and understanding of one’s own assumptions and desires, as well as that of others, is how societies are formed and how societies coexist. Only through a relativistic mindset can we resolve problems between distinct people, societies, and cultures, and only through a relativistic mindset do we determine our sense of right and wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment