Relativism and morality
Is it ethical? Will it be right? Is it a small sacrifice for the betterment of the future? All these questions do not have exact answers. You can never give a straight cut answer to all the above questions. You can never exactly say that a particular thing is completely right or completely wrong. All this varies from people to people and culture to culture. Individual personalities have different philosophies regarding particular thought and belief. There is never completely a black or white it is in between. It is grey. This is relativism. Relativism can be defined “as the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration”. According to relativism all views are considered valid. Well relative truth varies with people for example, a person prefers a red coloured car over black coloured car, where other person may disagree. True for one person is not true for another. So relative truth can’t be right or wrong. But greater than relative truth is Morality, where you see whether your actions are causing any harm to another and stop doing such things. Here which causes problems or harm someone should be considered as wrong. It is absolutely wrong on the part of our moral values to harm someone. There is a very fine line between morality and relative truth, moral values also varies from people to people and culture to culture but morality will never do any bad(even if it’s right for the other person). It is rightly said about moral by Ernest Hemingway “About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.” There are some things that are absolutely wrong and therefore I agree with Lenn Goodman. He is right on his part in challenging relativism and I fully support him. Just suppose if everyone was allowed to do as they wish, what a horrid place this could have been. If everything was so relative and there was no right or wrong then one person could have killed other for his better future, and he would never have got any punishment. Because on his part, he was right. Also sometimes we have to rise above principles to challenge wrong. For example, America would have never got independence if slavery was discussed on principles. But if we see overall, it was a good thing going against the principles because slavery was the wrong being done. Same goes with the case of India’s independence where the freedom fighters were called terrorists just because they fought against the government for their own rights. But not every compromise is that easy to digest. It was wrong what happened with Germany in the first world war was bad but what followed in the second world war by Nazis may be a reaction was not tolerable. It was like removing a whole community from the world, that was worst. How can one have the right to destroy the being of the whole community or clan, just to satisfy one’s own selfish motives. Or you thing this is right for your own community or culture, but this is completely wrong. It is not human. Our moral values and love and respect for each other is what differentiates us from ruthless animals. Every human deserves respect, love and moral behaviour even if there is culture difference or some other difference. We all are made of same thing and thus have the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document