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 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.
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 a
Order this paper