MODULE 1 - SUMMARY AND REACTION TO VELASQUEZ' "ETHICAL RELATIVISM"

This paper begin with a parroted summary of Velasquez and etal’s work and a personal reaction. In gist, Velasquez and etal argues: “cultures differ widely in their moral practices.” They emphasize this becomes problematic because ranges of social practices considered morally acceptable in some societies are condemned in others. The practice of infanticide, polygamy, sexism and torture leads us to question whether there are many universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a mater of “‘cultural taste.’” Morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture and the only moral standards against which a society practices can be judged are its own – the theory of ethical relativism. It is cautioned by Velasquez that a possibility of no common framework for resolving moral disputes is present or reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically – “Utopian.”
Velasquez and etal warns that most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Simply because some practices are relative, it does not mean that all practices are relative. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their view than others. However, the authors conclude it must be acknowledged that the concept of ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture – we need to challenge beliefs and values we hold.
----
Velasquez and etal’s piece of Ethical Relativism just added more confusion (more windows) to my personal perspective of ethics. Not that I’m confused at the lexical definition of what ethics is, but that I have gleaned from their paper are more ethical-provoking questions rather than guiding answers.
I believe that every member of humanity should act ethically otherwise without ethics a societal ruin could take place. A most recent, and excellent example, of “ruin” due to lack of ethics is the Enron case. The lives of people that they were slowly building up (for years) for themselves and for their families disappeared - gone, stolen. In this case, if the “corporate thieves” had any “ethics,” (I’m sure these corporate WASP can argue that they have greater “Christian morals” than I do since they are, WASP) the victims would not have gone through their terrible ordeal. However, here is the problem.
When I say, “ethics,” whose ethics should I apply when I look at cases like Enron? Were the victims inalienable rights affected? Were the corporate CEO practices immoral or just practicing paternalism for the victim’s inalienable rights? Isn’t it preached that large business ethics is to get the most out of everyone, no matter how you achieve this?
As an undergraduate student, who is living in the miniscule island of Oahu, a minority when if comes to my ethnicity and my religion - how do I apply ethics when I view the war in Iraq, the situation of Smoky Mountains in Manila, cloning, and the Miss Universe pageant? In what sense can viewpoint values learned from my culture relevant when I make an accounting of the situations mentioned? Also, growing up locally in Hawaii has produced in me several beliefs created by sub-cultures that affect my decision-making. So obviously, ethical decision making which is a part of human life can be, tacitly, guided by culture. But then, someone who is strongly attached to a religious culture is strongly guided orally – by oral traditions for decision-making.
Again, and again, and again, in what sense can we hold onto cultural relativism as a framework for ethical conduct? The simple answer, it is difficult.
Velasquez cautioned that criticism for ethical relativism is its implication for individual moral beliefs because this leads to the assertion that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society’s norm, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one’s society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. To add, ethical relativism leads to the assertion that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. The White’s in South Africa obviously believed apartheid was moral.
I have always leaned on self-choice, John Stuart Mill’s concept of liberty, and never agreed with paternalism (although I practice this hypocritically on my children). So can we use Kant’s categorical imperative to make decisions? With Velasquez’ article, I am now more divided than ever. Reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically, as I referred to earlier “Utopian.” Can it be accomplished?