Relativism, Absolutism, and Pluralism
Every person has moral and ethical values that dictate their belief on the rightness and wrongness of an action. The ethical inventory propounded by Hinman (2013) purposed to help individuals realize their drive while making moral decisions and the influence of things around them on the degree of consideration of ethicality of an action. Based on a string information the scale is significant in helping individuals realize their moral understanding. After completing the inventory, I made several conclusions pertaining to ethical decisions and standards. Morality and ethical standards are subjective concepts depended on the society that one lives. Notably, what may be considered moral in a particular community may turn unethical in another setting depending on the observances and beliefs of the two cultures (Beckett, Maynard & Jordan, 2017). Therefore, the decision path to making moral judgments is not isolated to the agent making the judgment but tied to the environment under which one is making the decision.
It is right to argue that human beings are not free agents of action but bound by the things around them while making decisions. Most of the judgments that we make in our daily lives are inclined to the fear of the unknown or the deities (Singer, 2013). There are several sources of religious morals, and it would be absurd to conclude that there is only one religion. According to Beckett et al. (2017), people act to avoid pain although moral foundations prohibit us from acting this way. However, everyone tends to judge other people depending on their actions despite the truth that human beings are free to make choices. The ability to measure the ethicality of an incidence is subject to the parameters laid down by the people determining the situation. For instance, some people may argue that consensual sex is okay while the religious may hold the fact that sex is holy and despite how people do, it if it is outside the agreed principle of religion, it is wrong. Therefore, it is true that morality is a subject of time and depending on the stage of development, the ethicality of an incidence can be determined (Hinman, 2012). Consequently, we are all bound to act in a specific manner delineated by the society as the moral path.
A moral consideration, when reflected under relativism, absolutism, and pluralism, implies different thing under the different isms. From a relativist point of view, there is no point of agreement on what is right or wrong because every society has its description of moral actions (Kusch, 2017). For instance, polygamy is allowed among Islamic while it is condemned in Christianity. For pluralist, every observance is important, and cultures must enable views from others and maintain their beliefs too (Hinman, 2012). Pluralist demand that people should consider others decisions before condemning them. On the other, absolutism emphasizes a particular culture is the best, and no one can challenge it (Siegel, 2017). Therefore, no right thing exists outside that culture and if it does, it is morally unacceptable. Consequently, moral decisions made by individuals are subject to the three perceptions of the actions.
Pluralists Response
Pluralists are accommodative to the beliefs inside and outside a particular system of beliefs. Therefore, they try to understand why people behave in a specific way and observe certain things. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a contentious topic in the world today. Both sides of the divide hold certain perception leading them to condemn or support the practice. However, a moral pluralist will be lenient while responding to forced female circumcision (Kusch, 2017). For this ethical point of view, it is important to dig deep into the motivation behind carrying out FGM before condemning those who do it. Indeed, pro-FGM societies have genuine intentions for passing the culture activity to their generations. However, the anti-FGM movements and individuals fail to get the gist behind the action denying a point of understanding between the two groups. Therefore, a moral pluralist will try to bring the two sides into consensus and allow them to agree on the way forward. Moral pluralism does not give any cultural practice an upper hand against another but provides for dialogue and understanding while making ethical decisions (Kosiewicz, 2015). For instance, societies that support FGM argue that they practice it to avoid immorality among their people by reducing the sexual urge among females. Anti-FGM on the other use scientific evidence to show that despite carrying the practice, it will not lead to decreased sexual demand among women. Therefore, a pluralist will tell two sides there can be other ways to help women manage their sexuality without engaging them in FGM or condemning the ones who do it. Consequently, pluralist realizes that everyone has a reason behind their actions and no matter how evil everyone sees it, it is significant to understand why they percieve it their way, but our standpoint on it does not make it evil at all.
The search for a universal foundation for morality has been active among human beings for a long time. Kant is among the most prominent philosopher who delved into the morality subject and came up with an ideal elucidation for moral consideration. His categorical imperative idea led him to believe that there is always one way to make ethical decisions (Kant, 2013). In the words of Hinman (2013), the categorical imperative implies that there is only one maxim for individuals to act, at a particular time, across all space. Therefore, the imperative applies to all moral agents and ethical situations. Accordingly, under categorical imperative, human beings would act morally and responsibly in every moral case. An excellent example of a categorical imperative is eating healthy food. Notably, good health is essential for a person’s health and community prosperity. Therefore, choosing to eat healthily will be good for an individual and the community and it makes the world more productive by generating healthy food that is harmless to the environment. Contrary to the categorical imperative is the idea of materialism and capitalism that has little benefits to individuals but ultimately causes harm to humanity through over-production and consumption. In such a situation, a categorical imperative essential for this case would be a spirituality that would engender the good for the individuals and the universe that they live (Wry & Lounsbury, 2013). Consequently, the categorical imperative is essential in making ethical decisions.
The Ethics of Duty
The categorical imperative position held by Kant has several advantages. The principle of universal ethics envisions bringing order in the society by allowing individuals to make decisions that are consistent across the universe. Indeed, individuals will act in duty where their actions have benefits to them and the society. Both the agent of action and the people around them will have benefits. According to Wry and Lounsbury (2013), the good in Kantian position is that it means significance for all but not isolated to benefit the moral agent only. Therefore, categorical imperative helps the society to get rid of bias and prejudice because the universal obligation principle rules the occasion for decisions making at all times (Kant, 2013). Consequently, actions envisioned by Kant impose a duty on moral agents rather than avoidance of attraction for the pleasure and pain. Indeed, the universalization of morality creates a force of reason rather than a subject of emotion during the decision-making process.
However, Kant’s position has several shortcomings. Notably, the Kantian position appears to be abstract because it does not define what decisions are morally right but stipulates how to act in certain situations (Zuckerman, 2017). Therefore, people may use the universal principle to justify all their actions even when they are morally wrong. Notably, Kant seems to imply that people should act only when they expect something good in return. Thus, people should put duty above everything that they do suggest that people may operate in an inhuman manner provided they fulfill their obligation. In his articulation, Kant puts God at the focal point implying that an atheist may not accept his case (Zuckerman, 2017). Moreover, Kant advocates that people should respect others as it is good and morally right, but he does not contextualize decisions and the effect of the environment on individuals while making decisions. Consequently, the Kantian philosophy fails to address what individuals are, making it hard to make moral choices outside his conceptualization making it impossible to make decisions in case of ethical dilemmas. Indeed, not every individual has the capability to make rational moral decisions and using Kant’s maxim will be detrimental to the process and the end of ethical choices.
The rights approach to morality implies that we must respect human dignity while making judgments. Therefore, human dignity anchors in the ability to make independent choices and having the moral obligation to respect others (Hinman, 2013). Thus, the rights approach to ethics implies that one’s rights end where other people’s rights begin.
Categorical Imperative
The rights-based approach is unique from other ethical theories because it motivates individuals to act on moral principles rather than what to do in an ethical dilemma (Parrott, 2014). Therefore, individuals must mount on moral reasoning on their way to making ethical judgments. Another significant advantage of the rights approach to ethics is that it acknowledges that people may be partial while making decisions especially while affecting the agent of a moral choice. The method places an individual at the epitome of the decision-making process, and they can fine-tune the means to make the desired ends (Banks et al., 2013). Significantly, the right’s method of the ethical conclusion is not theoretically based and focuses on building individuals and the people around them into better people.
The fact that rights-based do not have theoretical bases makes it more subjective. Therefore, what is right or wrong depends on what the moral agent perceives good for them. There is no definitive explanation to handle ethical dilemmas (Banks et al., 2013). The absence of boundaries of morality makes it hard to tell exactly where someone’s motives and freedom reaches. For instance, human beings have the fundamental right to life, but sometimes they may be killed if they infringe on the rights of others. Rights ethics approach does not concern itself with the rightness or wrongness of an action. Therefore, there are no parameters to judge moral judgments in the absence of this criterion (Crane & Matten, 2016). Importantly, rights ethics do not have the goals of an intention. People cherish their rights because they are fundamental to life, but there is no obligation associated with this freedom. Consequently, the rights approach to morality can be misleading while advocating for moral judgments.
Rights approach to ethics creates a situation of crisis and conflict while making a judgment on the morality of an action (Parrott, 2013). Therefore, while carrying out the human services work rights approach can bring trouble. For example, while offering help to suffering people such as philanthropist’s activities, there might arise conflict surrounding the rights of the people. Every individual has a right to protection and safety. However, in case the humanitarian bodies encounter trouble while trying to save people from hunger they have to defend themselves from the danger. For instance, when organizations go to provide food and health services in warring countries they may face attack and killing from the people they envision to help. When their governments or other bodies come and retaliates in their defense, they destroy the same people they purpose to help. Therefore, there is conflict on whether they are supposed to protect life or engender the loss of lives during their mission.
Strengths of Kantian Position
Everyone has rights to live and cherish life envisioned under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, the rights of the humanitarian bodies bringing help to the suffering are paramount. Although the attackers have a right to life, it is significant to attack and kill them to avoid other people from suffering (Parrott, 2014). Indeed, the attackers in most of the cases are the people who create this unnecessary suffering among their society denying people their healthy lives. The rights approach to moral decisions advocates that individuals have rights, but when they extend these rights to harm others, they have breached the boundaries of others rights (Crane & Matten, 2016). Therefore, it would be imperative to protect the good of those who deserve the right to life by ensuring safety for the people providing food and support to the endangered populations.
The Kantian and utilitarian theories emphasize the intention and consequences consecutively as the determinants of the morality of an action. Therefore, the two schools of thought have one thing in common in that they perceive ethics as an explanation of a particular situation and what ought to be the case in a moral dilemma. However, Aristotle’s character morality is unique because it purposes to answer the fundamental question of what one ought to be (Hinman, 2013). Therefore, Aristotle appears to emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of a character that promotes or inhibits the success of human beings. It would be true to say that Kantian and utilitarian philosophies used the action-oriented method to ethics while Aristotle applies the character-oriented strategy raising important philosophical questions which of the philosophical foundation is useful in solving ethical dilemmas.
Like any other type of ethics, character ethics has several advantages. Notably, this type of ethics allows individuals to look at the implication of their decisions and therefore decide whether to act (Crossan, Mazutis & Seijts, 2013). Thus, this ethics helps people become virtuous over time and become good people. Indeed, character ethics allows moral consideration separate from cultural limits. Therefore, people make more emphasizes on what it implies to be human rather than reflecting on moral predicaments (Peters, 2013). Importantly, virtue ethics allows secular and religious moral foundation while determining the rightness or wrongness of an action. Thus, the ethics link practical and theoretical methods of morality. Consequently, character-based ethics are a compassionate way of making moral decisions because it takes into account the whole person.
Weaknesses of Kantian Position
Virtue or character ethics appear to be ambiguous by failing to give clear guidelines on how to respond to the particular occasion of moral decisions such as natural law. Indeed, it is not possible to use character ethics to settle moral predicaments. It emphasizes on the role of the individual while making a decision makes it possible for people to act immorally without their knowledge (Crossan et al., 2013). There is no delineation on how to make judgments in case of conflict of virtues, and there is a need for rules to guide action. Importantly, the character-based ethical foundation is selfish because it places personal development at its epitome (Peters, 2013). It is also significant to highlight that Aristotelian ethics are more masculine as they emphasize virtues such as bravery and honor. Therefore, it is not sure that people can make an informed moral decision through this type of moral path.
Character-based ethics propounded by Aristotle serves to cultivate certain virtues that help grow individual to become better (Yu, 2013). Therefore, specific attributes are incompatible with the ethics of Aristotle. The medical profession is an area that requires practitioners to act with the utmost responsibility. Consequently, it will be contradictory to act indifferent while dealing with clients and patients as a doctor. The core values of doctor oath declare the practitioner’s commitment to engender and strengthen the appropriate resolve among physicians to demonstrate integrity such as compassionate and honesty (Cruess, Cruess & Steinert, 2016). Therefore, the bleach of this virtue to act with complacency while performing one’s duty will be incompatible with virtue ethics as explained by Aristotle (Crossan et al., 2013). It is the role of a doctor to nurture the treatment environment for their patients, collaborate with them, and aid than in making therapy choices consistent with the recuperation process for the patients. Therefore, in such a situation, the doctor has the sole responsibility to ensure that they help their clients make progress without considering the preferences of the patient. Consequently, indifference doctors may hinder the attainment of the doctor’s profession code of ethics and the realization of virtue ethics by Aristotle.
References
Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., … & Moore, N. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263-277.
Beckett, C., Maynard, A., & Jordan, P. (2017). Values and ethics in social work. Sage.
Broberg, M., & Sano, H. O. (2018). Strengths and weaknesses in a human rights-based approach to international development–an analysis of a rights-based approach to development assistance based on practical experiences. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(5), 664-680.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and character strengths in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567-581.
Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., & Steinert, Y. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching medical professionalism: supporting the development of a professional identity. Cambridge University Press.
Hinman, L. (2012). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory. Nelson Education.
Hinman, L. (2013). An Ethics Inventory: Discovering your own moral beliefs. Cengage learning.
Kant, I. (2013). Moral Law: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Routledge.
Kosiewicz, J. (2015). Why Pluralism, Relativism, and Panthareism: An Ethical Landscape with Sport in the Background. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research, 66(1), 75-87.
Kusch, M. (2017). Epistemic relativism, scepticism, pluralism. Synthese, 194(12), 4687-4703.
Parrott, L. (2014). Values and ethics in social work practice. Learning Matters.
Peters, J. (Ed.). (2013). Aristotelian Ethics in Contemporary Perspective (Vol. 21). Routledge.
Siegel, H. (2013). Relativism refuted: A critique of contemporary epistemological relativism (Vol. 189). Springer Science & Business Media.
Singer, P. (Ed.). (2013). A companion to ethics. John Wiley & Sons.
Wry, T., & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Contextualizing the categorical imperative: Category linkages, technology focus, and resource acquisition in nanotechnology entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 117-133.
Yu, J. (2013). The ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of virtue. Routledge.
Zuckerman, E. W. (2017). The categorical imperative revisited: Implications of categorization as a theoretical tool. In From Categories to Categorization: Studies in Sociology, Organizations and Strategy at the Crossroads (pp. 31-68). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
