Universal Morality

Universal Morality

Is there such a thing as general ethical standards of morality? We live in a world filled with diversity of culture, where each one has different ideals and ways to view right and wrong. One group's most cherished beliefs are likely to differ significantly from another culture's value system. It can be challenging to find common ground among us when people are so often unwilling to compromise when it comes to their moral standards or cultural beliefs. A community's culture is what provides meaning to their individual experiences and how they are used to making judgments about what is important in their lives. As our world has developed it has become increasingly important to recognize our differences; people travel, live, and have business interactions all over the globe, which is constantly bringing our differing cultures into close proximity. Philosophy now recognizes four major approaches to moral difference; moral nihilism, skepticism, and subjectivism, ethical relativism, soft universalism, and hard universalism. These approaches differ greatly in their thoughts of cultural morals and what are appropriate approaches in dealing with differences on this subject. In my mind they leave me with one major question; is there a general sense of morality that can cross inter-cultural belief systems and create a moral ideal for humanity as a whole? I believe that we all, as human beings, have an underlying sense of compassion and basic relatability that shapes a general and universal understanding of morality.

The first of philosophy's ethical standpoints is regarding Moral Nihilism, Skepticism, and Subjectivism; all of which have no capacity to solve conflict and create a general attitude of indifference. Individuals who believe in moral nihilism regard morality as having no right or wrong, with no one person's standpoint holding any weight. In essence if one truly abides by this theory, no one act is considered immoral. I can imagine how this could be true for any human being, especially when an immoral act is committed against these particular people. Would they really be able to stand by and watch while a family member is harmed, or while all there hard earned possessions are being taken from them? I find it hard to believe that would be the case; this theory disregards any type of responsibility or care for one another at the most basic level. Moral skepticism states that we cannot know if there are any real moral truths, and subjectivism views morality strictly on an individual basis which cannot be compared to any other view. With all of these theories there is such a general lack of humanity that it almost feels as if the theories were developed by individuals who simply didn't care to put any effort into the development of a legitimate moral theory.

When I think about moral nihilism I have to keep myself from becoming either offended or angry. I have personally suffered abuse as a child, and to think that anyone could feel indifferent about this type of suffering is insulting. It truly makes me wonder what type of person could feel that something so traumatic and horrible being done to a young child could be considered neither right or wrong. It makes me curious as to how they would feel if they were the child who had suffered; would their opinions on this theory be the same? All I can say is; I should hope not.

The theory of ethical relativism has recently gotten more attention as it pertains to an attitude of tolerance and holds the general belief that each culture has its individual right to practice cultural traditions that encompass their own moral code. An ethical relativist would believe there is no room for relation or understanding, just an acceptance and consideration for any culture's freedom to do as they wish. This theory allows for no common ground or shared understanding; it is simply a no interference approach to other cultures morals and practices. This theory takes on a majority rule approach to these moral standards; it is believed that what is good for the majority of a particular community is what is acceptable for the whole, and no outsider has the right to interfere. Essentially, the idea of right and wrong results from cultural beliefs; nothing is inherently right or wrong except within the framework of a particular culture.

While it may seem reasonable that a culture's given perspectives and practices are acceptable because the community consents to it, as it always been that way and it may be all they know; but does that necessarily make them right, or moral? Ruth Benedict, one of ethical relativism's greatest supporters, stated that "...Mankind has always preferred to say 'it is morally good' rather than 'it is habitual.'...But historically the two phrases are synonymous...The concept of normal is properly a variant of the concept of good" (Rosenstand; 146). When looking at this perspective objectively, I cannot accept that what is normal or habitual is the same as what is moral. Majority view allows for extreme bias; gender and racial alike. Can one truly consider racism or slavery moral? It was the view of the majority that this behavior was acceptable here in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century, as our majority was comprised of mostly European Americans. The fact that a group which holds certain beliefs comprises the majority does not make their beliefs acceptable, moral, or befitting for the entire population.

Rosenstand brought up the issue of female genital mutilation (127), which is also a perfect example for why the theory of ethical relativism is unacceptable. Can people really consider themselves to be