Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
moral problem, who is to say which side is correct? If morality is relative, we do not
have to try to reconcile opposing views. Both sides are right.
1.
With subjective relativism the line between doing what you think is right and doing
what you want to do is not sharply drawn.
People are good at rationalizing their bad behavior. Subjective relativism provides
an ideal last line of defense for someone whose conduct is being questioned. When
pressed to explain a decision or action, a subjective relativist can reply, “Who are
you
to tell
me
what I should and should not do?” If morality means doing whatever
you want to do, it doesn't mean much, if it means anything at all.
2.
By allowing each person to decide right and wrong for himself or herself, subjective
relativism makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people.
The fact is that some people have caused millions to suffer, while others have led
lives of great service to humanity. Suppose both Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa
spent their entire lives doing what they thought was the right thing to do. Do you
want to give both of them credit for living good lives?
A modification of the original formulation of subjective relativism might be, “I
can decide what's right for me, as long as my actions don't hurt anybody else.” That
solves the problem of Adolf Hitler versus Mother Teresa. However, as soon as you
introduce the idea that you shouldn't harm others, you must come to an agreement
with others about what it means to harm someone. At this point the process is no
longer subjective or completely up to the individual. In other words, a statement of
the form, “I can decide what's right for me, as long as my actions don't hurt anyone
else,” is inconsistent with subjective relativism.
3.
Subjective relativism and tolerance are two different things.
Some people may be attracted to relativism because they believe in tolerance. There
is a lot to be said for tolerance. It allows individuals in a pluralistic society like the
United States to live in harmony. However, tolerance is not the same thing as sub-
jective relativism. Subjective relativism holds that individuals decide for themselves
what is right and what is wrong. If you are a tolerant person, is it okay with you
if some people decide they want to be intolerant? What if a person decides that he
will only deal fairly with people of his own racial group? Note that any statement of
the form, “People ought to be tolerant,” is an example of a universal moral
norm
,
or rule. Relativism is based on the idea that there are
no
universal moral norms,
so a blanket statement about the need for tolerance is incompatible with subjective
relativism.
4.
We should not give legitimacy to an ethical theory that allows people to make decisions
based on something other than reason.
If individuals decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, they can reach
their conclusions by any means they see fit. They may choose to base their decisions
on something other than logic and reason, such as the rolling of dice or the turning
of tarot cards. This path is contrary to using logic and reason.
