Relative Ethics

Relative Ethics is the idea that ethics change depending on circumstance. Essentially, Relative Ethics or Relativism is almost an umbrella term that contains any theory of ethics that allows a degree of flexibility of the approach because of the conditions.

The aforementioned “flexibility” means that the moral or ethical decision that is undertaken by a relativist would change from situation to situation, whereas generally with Absolutists, it would not. For a relativist the individual situation would change depending upon their individual conviction, the cultural context, or the historical context.

Since the beginning of humanity, people haven’t agreed about what’s ethically right and ethically wrong. For instance, one person said that they liked spaghetti bolognaise and another said that they hated it, neither would be “wrong”, rather they would have different opinions. Protagoras, the Greek Philosopher was the first recorded person to discuss this view.

Protagoras believed that we all possess different opinions about the world around us. As a result of this we all had relativist ethics, and so our opinions about things are right, there is no wrong thing, just as you couldn’t condemn someone for being wrong about not liking spaghetti bolognaise.

However, the degree of “relativism” ranges quite dramatically. Either believing in absolutely no core beliefs at all, believing in situationist ethics, or in-between. The idea of relative ethics covers a vast number of different ethical theories.

For instance, Aristotle was a relativist, not believing in universal forms, like his master, Plato . Aristotle believed that we should seek a midway approach between two extremes, the middle way . He called this Nicomachean Ethics. For instance, one should not eat too much or too little, but in-between, the two. In short, it is the idea of being “virtuously charactered”.

Antinomianism is, by contrast, perhaps the most extremely relativist of all relative ethics. Antinomianism comes from the ancient Greek “αντι” , meaning against and “νωμιανισμ” meaning law. This means literally “against the law”, meaning that in the view of an antinomianist there should be absolutely no set laws, as the correct moral decision is one which is made with respect to circumstance.

Antinomianism is almost the opposite to formalism, a form of absolutism, believing that there are absolute immaterial rules that should always be adhered to. Antinomianism is a highly flexible belief, however, it has a tendency to cause problems if implemented. It would be impossible in a country employing antinomianism to have any system of law and punishment, as everyone would be “right”.

In Cultural relativism is that moral rules are simply the rules and expressions of culture, and nothing other than that. The case is that there is no set of rules that applies to everyone. Basically, this is “when in Rome do as Romans do” style of thinking.

In cultural relativism, it is not only which culture you are, but also what time you are in. If you were in ancient Rome, it would be morally acceptable for you have men fight to the death in gladiatorial arenas, whereas if you tried that today, you’d most likely be arrested. Just as cultures have different ethics, so do different times.

Ethnocentrism is the belief that your own culture is far superior to everyone elses. Again, this is a type of Cultural relativism, if one method of ethics was vastly superior to all of the others, then consequently the inferior methods would cease to exist. Ethnocentrism, whilst we all have it, believing we are right, is not necessarily a strong argument for the best ethic.

Most relativist ethical theories tend to be teleological, that is, the result counts, it doesn’t matter if some acts are against your morals in-between. This is opposed to the view that you were to stick to a set of absolutely unbreakable rules, no matter what they produced as a conclusion.

A good example of a teleological system of relative ethics is situation ethics. Situation ethics is the theory that the morally right thing to do in a situation is that which would result in the most loving outcome. It is a teleological theory, that meaning that the result is more important than the intermediate steps to get to the conclusion.

This medium of thought was first outlined by Joseph Fletcher in his book “Situation Ethics: The New Morality”. Fletcher was an Episcopal priest who developed the theory in the 60s.

This Christian ethical theory follows the idea that there are no moral absolutes, save that of love. Situation ethics is based around “love” more than anything. This “agape” love on which Fletcher based his ethics is reminiscent of Jesus Christ in the bible. Jesus tells his followers to “love thy neighbour” and essentially this is the basis fore situation ethics.

Situation ethics is seen by most ethical scholars to be the middle ground between legalism and antinomian relativism. Fletcher also put forward the idea that Jesus was a situationist, rather than most thought, an absolutist.

Fletcher’s view on laws was that there are no absolutist values or laws. The exception being the law of Agape, the law of love. As I previously stated, this mode of thought is teleological, meaning that the ends justify the means, as long as the most “agape” is produced at the end.

One of the main strengths about situation ethics is the fact that it is very simplistic and easy to follow. As often is the case with philosophical theories, some of the strongest cases are the simplest. If you are in an ethical dilemma, you simply weigh up the problems, and the result that produces the most “agape” should be the correct course of action.

With Relative ethics, actions are not intrinsically right or wrong, we all possess different opinions and we all do actions for what we think is a good cause. Relativism is able to cope with complex situations, that other ethical theories perhaps are not as well developed or unpractical (for instance absolutist rules), it also allows us to tolerate the cultures of others, provided you are not hugely ethnocentric.

Relativism does have its problems, as if you tolerate other cultures, you have to accept actions that we would consider appalling, such as genocide or torture. We also don’t have the means to decide the boundaries for a moral culture, many sections morals overlap and contradict, such as national morals, personal morals and religious morals.

In conclusion, relative ethics is the view that moral truths change and adapt. The morals adapt depending upon the situation in question. They may also change from culture to culture and place to place. Despite being hugely flexible, these ethics also have their problems, many cultures and religions overlap on matter on morals, whom should you follow?