Relativism and Morality

Relativism and Mortality

Goodman and Relativism

For centuries, philosophers have debated the nature of our ethics and laws. Many have seen them as a relative concept, under the structure of relativism, where there is no universal foundation for the structure of ethics and law because individual societies differ so dramatically and should have their own ethical structures relative to their unique needs and structures. However, Lenn E. Goodman tends to disagree with this concept as seen in contemporary practice, stating that such a philosophy leaves the environment too open for interpretation and impractical for modern use, and as such some concepts within in relativism are simply off track.

Relativism is a concept within philosophy and ethics that asserts there is no specific universal truth or need. Rather, as each society varies, so do its own unique truths and needs. In this regard, the ethics, laws, and assertions within each society should vary in degree when compared to other societies where there are cultural differences that do not match. Many philosophers argue for adopting a philosophy of relativism, with its "expected benefits in tolerance and cultural accommodation," especially in today's contemporary world where globalization is threatening the sanctity of individual cultural norms and experiences (Goodman 2010). Each culture, each society, should be free to construct its own version of morality and ethics depending on the nature of that culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. In this regard, "human norms must vary in their particulars from society to society and culture to culture" (Goodman 2010). As such, each culture has no right to judge the values and ethics of another culture from a relativist perspective.

However, Goodman is not entirely convinced that the principles of relativism will actually work within a contemporary world. For one, Goodman sees this as too loose of a structure to be practical in modern society, especially as globalization continues to connect cultures together in a growing international society, where ethics have to transcend cultural boundaries in order for these cultures to be able to work together in harmony. Each culture has its own view of what is right, but that does not always make it acceptable on a global scale. Goodman uses examples of mass destruction and murder as a way to highlight how this concept cannot be accepted in an international community. For example, a genocide or the 9/11 attacks have often seen as the right thing to do by the very cultures that are performing the horrific deeds, yet this does not make them right or acceptable. Osama bin Laden really thought the 9/11 attacks were right for his people and their fundamentalist ideas, and from a relativist perspective he should be allowed to do what is right for his society. Yet, this is clearly wrong. No culture should be able to justify the mass murder of members from another, no matter what that justification may be. This's also the same concept when looking at human rights around the world, especially in regards to how some cultures treat some of the more vulnerable populations like children and women. Despite a particular culture's own views, the subjugation and exploitation of women is still universally wrong. Allowing relativism to make excuses for such treatment of women is also wrong. As such, relativism can only serve to isolate individuals and take away their basic human rights in such regards. Moreover, Goodman is stating that relativism is simply impractical in regards to how it could be actually practiced in the modern world. Even here in the United States, a country with its own diverse cultures that differ dramatically from region to region, relativism would prove too broad to function properly, as "American courts will overturn a statute for unconstitutional vagueness, and ethical principles, as well, if framed too broadly" (Goodman 2010). The idea here is that relativism is too broad and flexible to serve as a foundation for successful structures of law and order. Without some universal ideas, laws would not be strong enough to protect those vulnerable populations who need protection, and to punish those who clearly violate basic and universal moral and ethical concepts. Overall, Goodman presents a strong argument that relativism cannot be taken as a foundation for international law and relations because it fails to ensure equality and protection for all involved.