IS MORALITY RELATIVE?

KEBBA JATTA

The question of morality touches on the broader question of ethics. In this paper, I will examine moral relativity within that broad context of ethics but often referring to justice as an example of a moral act. I will argue in favor of moral relativism, relying mainly on Aristotle’s moral theory as oppose to Emmanuel Kant’s Universalist theory. I use Kant largely because he appears to stand on a similar philosophical ground as Plato. Kant and Plato share a Universalist view of morality. They both believe that morality is absolute for all people at all times. This is perhaps the Newtonian view (after the British physicist, Isaac Newton) of morality as opposed to the Aristotelian moral relatively similar to Einstein’s (Relativity) theory of the universe.

Moral relativity is the philosophical theory that there is no objective standard to measure or judge what is right or wrong. This concept perhaps developed from the ‘social contract theory’ as explained in Plato’s Republic. The ‘social contract theory’ states that human beings are naturally unjust (immoral). Everybody acts on their desires and personal interest somewhat similar to John Locke’s political theory of the ’State of Nature’, which ultimately is bad for everyone in the society. This realization that extreme individual selfish acts ultimately undermine society’s wellbeing then prompts people to agree among themselves not to harm one another. This agreement then becomes the ‘social contract’ that forms the moral code leading to a peaceful, beneficial and a happy society for all, Glaucon stated in the Republic. Therefore, according to moral relativism, what is moral or ethical depends on what is generally accepted by each society. Morality therefore cannot be constant over time and space. In short, there is no such thing as absolute morality.

Critics of moral relativism argue that it makes excuse for horrible acts such as slavery and Nazism for example, which could then be considered by moral relativist as morally right in the past even though it is now considered by the majority of people as wrong. Professor Nam raised this issue in his lecture series by asking “what if the majority of the people come to consider slavery as morally right again in 2052?” These are valid questions that need to be adequately addressed by moral relativists. However, slavery (except chattel capitalistic slavery that existed in the United States and Europe) in some form existed in every society at some point. It is often a response to the prevailing economic conditions and labor relations that sometimes works for both slave and slave owner.

However, the question still remains: why do we act morally? Or to use justice as a specific example, why do we act justly? Before addressing this question, I have to point out that, as Professor Nam stated; this question assumes that morality actually exists? If so, then the question of whether morality is absolute or relative and the motive(s) for it arises. Morality is indeed real, by all indications, and according to Aristotle, it exists in relative terms. That is to say that morality varies from society to society across time and space. Professor McGowan cited the example of the Eskimo culture in his lecture series on YouTube. According McGowan, Eskimo parents kill their young ones especially female ones at their own discretion, and they also freely share their wives with visitors as a show of hospitality. These acts by Western standards are horrible acts, but there appears to be a number of environmental and cultural rationales for these practices by Eskimos. Aristotle argued that people act morally or justly because of their natural desire to do the “highest good” which is to achieve the state of happiness. This, in the Aristotelian sense is a natural urge to fulfill human nature rather than an abstract mysterious purpose that both Plato and Kant suggested. In the painting of the two philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) shown together in Dr. Nam’s lecture, Plato could be seen pointing his finger upwards while Aristotle directed his hand to the ground.  This depiction of the two philosophers, in a subtle way, illustrates their different philosophical stands. While Plato looked upwards to the sky for heavenly reasons why humans act morally or justly, a view shared by Kant; Aristotle looked for earthly reasons within human beings themselves for the motives. It is relevant to note this Aristotelian departure from his teacher, Plato’s transcendentalist motives for morality.

Aristotle viewed happiness as the use of reason and wisdom to perform virtuous acts.  Emmanuel Kant in contrast trusted that instinct more than reason results in actions that produce happiness. Therefore, according to Aristotle, virtue is the criterion for evaluating whether an action is morally good or not. These inward, naturalistic ways of explaining human motives for acting morally are referred to as the “Aristotelian Circle”. It stands in sharp contrast to the supernatural, abstract and mysterious ways of Plato which are now called the “Platonic Forms”. While Plato didn’t elaborate on these transcendental motives, Aristotle went to some length to explain his theory. According to Aristotle, two forces determine whether humans act morally or not. They are “character” and “action”, and both are not absolute but rather they depend on each other. “Character” determines an action to be virtuous. However, “character” is in turn formed by virtuous “acts” (actions). Aristotle believed that this two way interaction between “character” and “action” results in the state of “happiness” (Eudaimonia), which is the ultimate goal of human nature. “Happiness above all else is what we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else”, Aristotle said (Andrew Bailey, 2011).

Critics of Aristotle’s theory points out that his argument could not be right because it runs in circles. They are quick to note that, it is a circular argument to say that “character determines action, and that action in turn determines character” as the “Aristotelian Circle” appears to indicate. For this reason, they argue that we have to accept Plato’s argument in the “Platonic Forms” because it does not have the circular problem that Aristotle’s theory has. My problem with the “Platonic Forms” is that we do not know what it is. Plato did not tell us what these forms are. Plato’s theory therefore may not have a circular problem, but it does have an epistemic one.

Professor McGowan also cited the examples of free speech in the United States versus China, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and the U.S. Founding Fathers as representing moral acts at one point in time and space and at another, representing immoral acts. This illustrates that moral relativism is self-defeating, according to Professor McGowan. However, McGowan warns us to be open-minded because our preferences may not after all be rooted in some absolute rational standards, and cited monogamy in Mormonism as well as modesty of dress and Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction”.

In his “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant also identified ‘character’ as a precedent for moral acts, but unlike Aristotle, he added ‘good will’ as an indispensable constituent of ‘character’. Kant’s ‘good will’ is similar to Plato’s transcendental motives in that he (Kant) views ‘good will’ as the highest good, even worthy of happiness by itself. Kant’s view is problematic with regards to actions that are just and moral, for he believes that the mere act of doing something just and moral does not necessarily result in its moral worth. The ‘good will’ or the inclination to do the just and moral act must be present in order for the action to be morally worthy. This Kantian ‘good will’ is the mental disposition that Kant himself referred to as the “categorical imperative” (Bailey, pg. 659). Therefore an action accompanied by good will has moral worth, and an action not accompanied by good will has no moral worth, according to Kant (Bailey, pg. 650). In his ‘Third Formulation’, Kant urged one to act as if his actions should serve as a universal law of all rational beings (Bailey, pg. 662). But there is no universal law of all rational beings. Besides the physical laws of nature, much of the laws governing human actions are human constructs reflecting human interaction with one another and the environment through time and space. Kant in effect ascribed a fixed reference point for moral behavior, pretty much like Plato did. This is not consistent with human experience.

Human history itself is a testimony to the credibility of moral relativity. Human beings, as evolutionary beings, are in all respects non-static. Human character and action are in a constant flux as variables of time and space. Our changing values on some of today’s hot-button issues such as military conflict, assisted suicide, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are very instructive in this respect.