Philosophy concepts and foundations

Philosophy

Ethical relativism with a subjectivist orientation:

What do you consider the strongest objections to your position and why? What weaknesses and inconsistencies do you see in this position? What do you consider to be the strongest arguments?

Perhaps the strongest objection to ethical relativism is that relativism is no ethical system at all. If everything is relative, does this mean that everything is equally right or wrong, from infanticide in the context of the ancient Roman republic to a business person cheating, lying, and stealing from customers in the present-day context of the United States? It is true that it is more difficult to examine the subjective context of a particular ethical question than it is to follow an ethical guide like an objectivist, who believes ethical questions can be decided by following ethical rules like a formula or recipe. Ethical relativism requires a careful weighing of the situation of the persons involved, the moment in historical time, and the particular nature of the circumstances faced by the ethical decision-maker. There is a danger of using relativism to justify simply fulfilling one's own desires. But relativism with a subjectivist orientation is really a different method of reckoning a decision's ethical worth, rather than none at all -- it challenges absolutism in such a fundamental way that the absolutist cannot see the worth in relativism, a system which truly understand that the spirit is superior to the letter of the law.

Relativism as an ethical system is more than saying 'everything is relative' and doing nothing. It demands an active and involved decision-making process, one which is deeply thoughtful and emotionally truthful because it is empathetic to people from different cultures. Relativism is not saying 'anything goes,' because the ethical system does attempt to accomplish the fostering of moral good, even while it posits the relative nature of what we consider 'good.' What is good, according to relativism and subjectivism is that tolerance is better than absolutism. Yes, on the surface this appears like a contradiction, for to argue that tolerating multiplicity still implies some standard. But the relativist Emerson would argue that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds -- yes there is some standard behind relativism, namely to allow for some degree of tolerance as a kind of 'good.' But simply because this is a denial of the idea that 'everything is relative' does not mean that having an absolute and ultimately intolerant standard for all time is the better alternative.

And yes, it is true that to be utterly relativistic would mean to validate intolerance. A relativist could theoretically say that intolerance is 'the same' as tolerance. But ultimately, in practice, relativism in action is saying that no system of ethics has been valid for all time, and relativism and subjectivism are constantly evolving in creative dialogue with history and other circumstances. For example, perhaps a long time ago, a division of labor between the sexes made sense, when brute force was necessary for survival, to catch game and to defend cities, and when women had to spend a large portion of their lives bearing children. However, now that technology is responsible for so much of obtaining food and defending the nation, and the more psychological care of fewer children can better be accomplished through the participation of both parents, such a gendered division of labor is inefficient and makes poorer use of human resources, even from an objective point-of-view. And relativism allows the subjective feels of women who feel their talents are underused to be taken into a consideration when ethically determining if affirmative action for women in business is a moral good. The flexibility of relativism with a subjectivist orientation enables individuals to more fundamentally question the assumptions of their lives and to change and shift in a positive way with the circumstances.