Intro to ethics: Relativism and Social Contracts

Category: Critical
Rejects ethical theories because: morality is a human invention (so there is no such thing
as right/wrong or good/bad beyond what various societies accept and prohibit).
As we saw last time, relativists agree with nihilists that ethical standards are a human
invention. But unlike the nihilists, who see this as a reason to deny morality altogether,
the relativists response is not so extreme.
According to relativists, we invented ethical standards, and by doing so, we created moral
truths. So, according to relativists, morality is real now. But the idea that morality is a
human invention still places a limit on the duties that each of us is subject to.
Suppose that the relativists are right, and humans created morality when we first agreed
to follow moral codes. Because ethical standards are created by human societies, and
different societies have different ethical standards, moral claims are only true or false
relative to a particular societys standard. Morality in any society just is whatever that
societys moral code says it is. There is no universal moral code that binds us all, no
command we must all follow, no duty to which we are all subject, and no higher authority
to settle disagreements between societies codes.
The notion of a social contract is useful to explain how relativism works. Moral codes
divide actions into those that are acceptable vs. unacceptable. Moral truths are created by
social contracts, agreements between members of a society to follow a particular moral
code. One implicitly agrees to the social contracts of societies in which one become a
member.
By applying the notion of a social contract, we can specify a principle of action for
relativism: wrong actions are ones that violate your groups social contract; acceptable
actions are ones allowed by your groups social contract.
Assessing Relativism: the positive case

Does the theory identify a plausible basis of value?

According to relativism, whatever your society treats as the basis of value, thats whats
valuable to you. The basis of value is guaranteed to sound plausible to each society, since
it will just be whatever that society says it is. As relativists, we would have to live with
the fact that whatever we treat as most valuable might be most valuable only to us, even
if it seems to us that it ought to be valuable to anyone.

Can the theory be applied to determine right/wrong action in all situations?

This looks like a great success of the theory. To do the right thing, you just follow the
moral code of your society. What could be simpler than that?

Does the theory provide a plausible principle of action?

Many people find the idea the idea that morality is a human construct more plausible than
the idea that morality exists independently of us. The evidence: differences between
various societies moral codes suggest that there is no absolute basis for morality.
A bonus: It is compatible with a selfish view of human nature, and thus preserves most of
the positive features of Ethical Egoism while avoiding most of the weaknesses.
*Hobbes argument: suppose we didnt have social rules and governments. (He
calls this the state of nature.) We would live in constant danger and fear, and our lives
would be brutish and short. Each of us will be in a constant war with everyone else to try
to gain and defend resources. Standard of living will be low, because we will have to live
day-to-day---it would not be worth it to engage in activities like farming and industry that
require an investment up front for a payoff later, because it would be too easy for
someone to let you do all the work, then kill you and take all of the benefits for
themselves.
Self-interested people will realize that they can do better than that by cooperating,
but need some ground rules for how their society will work and some assurance that
others will actually follow through on their promises to cooperate. So, to escape the state
of nature and set up a cooperative division of labor, they need to agree to rules, and set up
an agency (government) that has the power to enforce the rules. This small sacrifice of
total freedom is worth it because of the huge increase in standard of living that comes
along with it.
According to the relativist, morality comes to exist within societies that are set up
in this way, and this explains why the duties your society places upon you are legitimate:
each member of your society (including yourself) agrees to follow the rules so that the
society (and you as a member of it) can flourish.
Assessing Relativism: the negative case

Does the theory ever determine right/wrong incorrectly in an easy case?

It doesnt allow for any extra-societal standard that we can use to judge the worthiness of
various codes, including our own. Each code is the final authority over its society.
Results:
-Our criticisms of other societies moral codes will be hollow, since they will be
based on our own code, and our code has no authority outside of our society. This can be
good, in that it encourages tolerance and an understanding that different does not =
wrong. But the downside is that there are practices in other societies that we think should
rightfully be condemned (female circumcision in many African societies, slavery in
societies of the past). Relativism takes the force out of such condemnations, since the
codes they are based on do not apply in those societies.
-It leaves no room for legitimate criticism of our own moral code. Our code is
treated as the final authority, so moral progress can only occur by doing better at living
up to our code, not by revising it. But surely we made progress by changing our code so
that slavery became unacceptable.

These difficulties have led some Social Contract Theorists to claim that morality is not
determined by the actual rules of your society, but by the (hypothetical) rules that
unbiased rational beings would find appealing, or that would best facilitate social living.
Social Contract Theorists who make such a claim would be placed among Kantian
ethicists or Utilitarians, not Relativists.

Can the theory be applied to determine right/wrong action in all situations?

We are members of many different societies. Every social group you are a part of has its
own set of rules for proper conduct. What if one of my societies requires an action (for
example, animal sacrifice) that another of my societies forbids? Am I really required to
either disown or accept a punishment from one society in such a case? Concern over
such issues has become much greater in recent times; as globalization occurs, the
opportunities to function as a member of multiple societies increase, and so do the odds
that a conflict will arise between two of your societies codes.

Does the theory provide a plausible principle of action?

All societies share some values, suggesting that there might be a culture-independent
standard for morality, after all.
But if that standard is not to be found by appeal to happiness, Kantian duties, or Divine
commands, what is its source? Perhaps human nature determines that certain things will
be valuable to us, and sets a purpose for our lives. This is the suggestion of Aristotelian
ethics, which we will look at next.