Even if we are vaguely aware the clerk may be charged -- it is his or her mistake, we say to ourselves. We think we have absolute ethical standards, but we function on a case-by-case basis when making decisions in reality. Does this mean, however, that absolute ethical standards are required to weigh against the negative consequences of relativism? Firstly, these examples highlight the difficulty of living by absolute standards, and how if standards are too inflexible, they may result in no standards at all. Even religions with strict universal standards often must have a lay and clergy distinction because it is so impossible to live by the standards of the faith, 'perfectly' according to their anti-materialist rules. Abstinence-only sexual education that does not acknowledge deviations from 'perfect' behavior might be the most ineffective pregnancy prevention program of all.
Acknowledging the subjective and relativistic nature of ethical schemas does not mean that one should not try to create personal or societal standards, but to understand that these standards are culturally bound and contextual, and what is right for us, at a moment in time, may not be right later on or for another society. For example, given the societal history of racism in the United States, the technically discriminatory practice of affirmative action may be wise, even necessary to erase the history of racial oppression in the nation, but years from now, this method of enforcing diversity may not be desirable. Viewing individuals independent of their ethnic background when creating...
standards of government and individualism upon another society has merely created further divisions, as evident in the difficulty of creating a workable government in Iraq and other places with fundamentally different cultural histories and ideas about the role of the person. In some areas people are defined by their ethnic and religious ties in the context of family and region and to demand that individuals see themselves as universal, disconnected 'people' absent of such times cannot eradicate their fundamentally different ethical assumptions. To impose our own views results in bloodshed, not in healing. Dealing with other nations requires American to have an appreciation of subjectivity and different ethical beliefs. A Muslim woman may not see wearing a veil as oppressive, a Hindu man may not see an arranged marriage as eradicating what an American sees as the essential purpose of life -- freedom of choice. To regard one's standards as correct in a universal context creates divisions, not bonds, and fails to take into consideration the evolution of our own standards over time. Out standards only seem universal from our own temporal, contextual vantage point.
