ATHEISTS: Would you consider yourself an ethical relativist? CHRISTIANS/OTHER BELIEVERS: Would you, as well?

Question

Ethical relativism is the belief that ethical decisions are dependent on the context of the event or dilemma. They deny that there is one answer that would be applicable in every circumstance.

Ethical absolutism is the belief that ethical decisions are drawn from a set of laws that are permanent and immutable. All ethical decisions can be solved first by looking at these laws and following their dictates with much less regard for the circumstances.

Feel free to explain how you reach this decision.

Lady of the Garden:

The term "Ethical Relativism" received over 123,000 hits on Google. I don't think I could take credit for making up a term with that kind of popularity.

.

Answer 1

as an atheist, I would say that I do not agree. I do agree that Ethical Relativism is valid, but you need to add on the drawn from experience of the person making the decision. In other words ethical decisions are dependent on the context of the event or dilemma ALONG with the personal experience, mindset, history (ie, bias), of the person making the decision including the commonly accepted culture.

Answer 2

Good question, and thank you for supplying definitions.

I would be more of an ethical absolutist, in that I believe that one should look first to current legislation (Canada) if there is doubt as to whether something is legal. Canada is influenced primarily by legal positivism, in which only the rules enacted by those with the authority to do so qualify as law. There is some room for legal realism, which allows judges to factor in current social and economic realities, but very little at the level of the lower courts. At the highest level, the Supreme Court of Canada deals with decisions that have the greatest implications for the country as a whole, and these decisions are binding upon all lower courts. In this way, there is some flexibility, but only at the highest level and the process of adapting law to change with the times can be very slow.

I am aware that the laws in my country, while they might seem "permanent and immutable" are actually continually evolving, albeit slowly. I don't expect that I will ever be able to afford to take any issue to the Supreme Court level; therefore, I look to abide by current legislation, knowing that it will be more narrowly interpreted by the provincial court and that I will not have the resources to challenge anything.

If you're speaking of day-to-day ethical issues, I would have to say that I am more of an ethical relativist, because I am a Secular Humanist and have no set of ethical "laws" to follow. Nowhere (outside of legislation) is it written that I should not steal, for example. The law doesn't cover every situation, and all I can do is go by a basic policy of trying to respect other people. Nowhere does it say that I must forgive, though, and wrath is no sin for me. This leaves me pretty free to make ethical decisions based on what is best for all of the human beings involved, keeping in mind that it's better to make people happy than to make them unhappy :-)

Lisa
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/secularhumanism/

Answer 3

Given your definition, I suppose I would most of the time. By your very definition, however, one cannot claim absolute relativism if any situation is contextual.

Let's say you are driving all night across Wyoming. The night is clear, you are not tired, the road conditions are ideal and traffic is almost nonexistent. The speed limit is 65mph, but you are doing 85. Contextually, you are harming no one, but absolutism states that you should have your driver's license revoked for one year for going 20mph over the posted limit.

Absolutism is ridiculous. The majority of laws are written for the lowest common denominators of society; those that, if left to their own devices, would cause massive destruction and harm. Most people wouldn't kill another person, even if there were no laws forbidding it.

But remember in school when you had that one teacher that allowed gum chewing in class until that ONE moron stuck it under the desk? From that point forward, no one was allowed gum in class, even if there was only one transgressor. Guilty or not, you still received the negative results of another's actions, and the new rule of No Gum Allowed simply ASSUMED that if you had gum, you would stick it under the desk at some point.

Let's go a bit further...

Terrorists attack New York, and from that point forward it was simply assumed that a 73-year old grandmother was going to hijack another plane with her toenail clippers, so EVERYONE got a gloved hand up their butts whether they were guilty of anything or not. We ALL suffered from the absolutist knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident, with no tangible increase in public safety.

Which viewpoint do you agree with?

Answer 4

Ethical absolutism isn't exactly what you say when you state "All ethical decisions can be solved first by looking at these laws and following their dictates with much less regard for the circumstances."

Mercy is every much an aspect of Ethics as is Justice.

So, ethically, regard for the circumstance is of paramount importance.

There are absolute truths in this universe.

Answer 5

Not believing in gods doesn't make one an ethical relativist.

There are certainly situations where absolutism is inappropriate and considering the context would be a fairer method for decisions.

It isn't really a question of "either only the law, or no law at all." Sometimes it's by the book, regardless; sometimes it's extenuating circumstances.

Answer 6

I guess if I had to choose one, Ethical Relativist fits me best. There is never only one answer to any given situation, or only one way to get the answer....hence the phrase "there's more than one way to skin a cat".

However, that's just another label to put on people. Don't we have enough of those already? I have a real problem with labeling, pigeonholing and categorizing people. There are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people in the world. Because nobody is on exactly the same page about everything, that's a lot of labels to have to pass out!

Answer 7

I think morality is absolute. There is a God and He knows all about what is right and wrong and anything He says is right, so therefore, their are moral absolutes.

Also:
I've never heard of the term ethical relativism/absolutism. I'm more accustomed to moral relativism/absolutism. Is that an actual phrase or did you coin that term yourself.

Answer 8

this is a toughie. In a feeling, i assume you ought to declare i'm a relativist because of the fact i believe ethical codes are often social constructs. despite the fact that (and that i know this is something of a contradiction), I additionally think of that if this is incorrect while Mr. Y does something then this is incorrect while Mr. Z does it, and cultural ideals at the instant are no excuse. as an occasion, woman circumcision is often incorrect -- i do no longer care despite if this is someone-friendly prepare in some cultures or no longer. different themes are much less clean to me, and open to communicate. How do I stability my philosophically contradictory perspectives? i think of maximum ethical themes are actual desperate via using some sort of the golden rule. In much less clean debates, like while attempting to verify while a fetus is a "human" and at what ingredient this is immoral to abort -- I parent that those are issues we ought to debate till extra suitable data is at our disposal.

Answer 9

I have probably always been an ER. Even back when I was a relatively good little catholic.

This is just me; it has nothing to do with my religion or lack thereof. I'm morally flexible and always have been.

The only difference between now and then is that now I no longer feel bad if I do or think something that I previously considered a sin. I'm talking about silly things like have sex, not anything dire.

Answer 10

I'm an ethical relativist.

There are very few absolutes in this world, and certain issues must be resolved by taking circumstance and the natures of the individuals concerned into consideration.

.