Morality: Relativism Vs. Absolutism

The great philosophical debate over right and wrong may be a question never answered. Two major contributors to this philosophical debate are James Rachels and Gilbert Harman. Rachels argued the absolutist point of view and felt that there is one universal truth that all humans must follow. Harman, however, argued for the relativist point of view, asserting that humans have un-spoken agreements between one another that allow them to function on a daily basis. This essay will summarize both of these opposing thesis and shed light on another idea of ethical truth.

Rachel's argues the absolutist point of view and begins his writing by giving the reader some of the horrifying consequences of Cultural Relativism. Rachel's try's to show the reader that by taking cultural relativism seriously "We could no longer say that customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own." (255) By saying this he means, for example, that we could not call a society based on human sacrifice inferior to ours because there would be no Universal Truth to pull from. Rachels also feels that, "The idea of moral progress is called into doubt." (256) He feels that there can no longer be any progress in our world if there is no universal truth that can validate that progress.

Later in his work Rachel's moves on to what he believes is the truth to morality. Rachel's feels that, "there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist." (260) He admits, "Cultures may differ in what they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules" (260); however, he still feels that every culture follows the same basic principles. In Harmon's view without concrete basic moral codes cultures would not be able to function successfully. Cultures do have differences in how they perceive the same morals but that doesn't take away from the fact that all cultures follow the same concrete moral values. A good example of this belief presented in the writing describes the Eskimo culture and how their values still hold true to absolutism. This example describes how in Eskimo culture it is reasonable to kill an elder who is too old to continue sustaining an active life. Rachels describes how "To the general public, these were disturbing revelations." (258) However he goes onto explain that to many anthropologists and sociologists "there was nothing particularly surprising..." (258) this is because the Eskimos must do this to sustain their life. This, however, does not take away from the fact that Eskimos still believe in the same concrete ethical idea that murder is wrong.

Rachels is wrong in his assessment of Cultural Absolutism. He tries to show that all cultures share the same moral values however these concrete moral values can be understood differently from culture to culture and therefore there are different exceptions to the main morals. Absolutism refers to the idea that there are concrete morals, which cannot be revised or changed. By seeing each culture as sharing the same morals but at the same time having their own ideas on how to carry out the concrete morals contradicts cultural absolutism. While Rachel's basic idea that all cultures share the same ethics is a completely valid absolutist idea, asserting that these concrete ethics are up to speculation comes off as much more of a relativists point. Rachels makes a strong argument however I think it was difficult to see his beliefs as absolutism at its base roots.

Gilbert Harman takes a differing view, supporting a relativist view of morality. Harman's argument is very carefully thought out and detailed in nature, though his views appear in sufficient at times. His thesis is based upon the belief that all morality is based around unspoken agreements that people believe are moral. The only reason that people find each other's inner judgments puzzling is because they do not understand the other person's way of life and therefore, share no common unspoken rules with that person or culture. Harman feels that it is the differences between cultural morals that fluctuate and change people's perceptions of moral codes. Harman's argument is best summed up when he says, "We make inner judgments about a person only if we suppose that he is capable of being motivated by relevant moral considerations. We make other sorts of judgment about those who we suppose are not susceptible of such motivation." (515) By saying this, Harman is trying to explain that a person is only able to make a judgment about the morality of another if they share something in common with other person (unspoken agreements). If a person does not feel that the other person is capable of being positively affected by their morals, they will classify them as insane or alien to modern morality. A good example of this used that is used by Harman is the illustration of aliens landing on earth and killing its inhabitants with laser guns. In Harman's view, society would not try to reason with these creatures because people would assume that they could not be reasoned with. As a result, humans would try to defend themselves and instead of trying to confront the aliens moral standards, they would classify them as heathens. Although this is a very abstract example, it illustrated Harman's idea perfectly because it showed the reader how easily humans can alienate another race because of differing views on morality.

Harman's argument towards Cultural Relativism is much too vague. He excludes many other issues dealing with morality and by only focusing on inner judgments, Harman weakened his argument. Rachel's argument described a much more generalized view of all human judgments not just the inner judgments and therefore illustrated a philosophical lifestyle and gave a strong image that could answer many human problems with morality. Harman's argument gave a strong picture of inner judgments but failed to shed any light on any other human judgment dealing with the issue. Harman definitely brings up an interesting idea that could potentially change the way people look at cultural relativism, however, his idea doesn't come off strong at all in his argument. If Harman worried less about his peer's reviews on his work and focused more on getting a complete thought across, then his thesis would be much more widely accepted.

In conclusion both of these readings gave a very interesting look into human ethics. Morality should lie within each individual. However, there are many factors outside the mind that play a part in a person's moral beliefs. It is important to look at morality from both sides of the spectrum and try to understand it in its full complexity before passing judgment on another. Each person or society has a right to they're own moral standards, and all people should try to respect each other's morals as individuals. People do have the right to judge another's moral integrity if that person is threatening their well being or directly offending their moral code however, they cannot say that they're own morals are correct. There are no correct moral standards documented; in fact there are many well-respected and influential people in the world with completely different moral standards. This fact should be taken into consideration before looking at another person as immoral. Taking a stand on a moral standard of living is beside the point. People should instead strive to understand their own moral principles, as well as those of others, attempting to accept the similarities and differences between foreign points of view. If the idea of morality can change from a debate over two opposite ideas and transform into a universal understanding or mission to understand, humanity may get one step closer to finally living in harmony with each other.

Bibliography:

Harman, Gilbert. "From 'Moral Relativism Defended." Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings. Ed. Robert Solomon. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 514-517

Rachels, James. "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism." Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Ed. Steven M. Cahn. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 251-261

Stace, Walter. "On Ethical Absolutism." Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings. Ed. Robert Solomon. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 513-514