Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico

Prof. Miosz Mariusz Jacko

Ethical Dimensions Contemporary Affairs [GEPE 4040]
Is Morality Relative or are There Objective Moral Truths?
As it has already been established in many texts, morality is a complex subject
that requires you to analyze many factors in order to come to a conclusion. Everyone
comes from different backgrounds and everyone has lived in different contexts, which
means that every mind will be full of different ideas and different ways to see the world
in which we live. So any individual who tries to analyze the subject will base their
conclusion on previously acquired knowledge even when they intend to be objective.
That said, I do not believe there are objective moral truths.
The closest thing there could be to an objective moral truth are those concepts
that are accepted by majorities as right or wrong, or the so called Consensus Ethics.
But that is not to say they are absolute and truthfully right or wrong. Its just based on
the idea that if the majority agrees, it might be the right thing to do, which is not always
true. Lets look at the following situation that will help you better understand my point. A
group of 10 people are on a ship thats going adrift. They have been there for a week
now and they are running out of food. While they try to come up with a solution,
someone suggests they sacrifice a few of their companions so that the food supplies will
last longer.

They all vote by raising their hands to decide whether or not they will carry out the
proposed plan. Two people were against the idea and eight people were in favor. As it
turns out they decided that the two people who disagreed should be the sacrificed ones.
Now, this decision was probably wise if they expected to survive. Everyone on the ship
would agree that it was, for their sake. But when we transport this situation to a moral
context, was that the right thing to do? I would certainly agree that it wasnt, and yet,
someone else might think it was. Thats just the way humanity works. Their judgement is
clouded by their needs and ideals, all of which are subject to change.
Having said that humanitys needs and ideals are subject to change, I must also
agree with Benedicts statement when she says that our culture is but one entry in a
long series of possible adjustments. Recently there has been a lot of discussions and
news about the legalization of cannabis which has been an issue since 1980 when
Ronal Reagan said "Marijuana, pot, grass, whatever you want to call it, is probably the
most dangerous drug in the United States. That was the belief back then. Today, April
20, 2014 cannabis is legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington; and legal for
medical uses in roughly 9 other states. Studies were carried out, and new uses were
discovered. When the facts change so do our beliefs. Thats how morality also changes.
If we pretend to analyze anything we need the all the facts in black and white. So
I do not believe we can separate the descriptive aspect of anthropological study from
the prescriptive aspect of evaluating cultures. Every culture must be evaluated inside its
own context for it to make any sense. If there is an unavoidable need to compare
cultures we could go by criminality rates, quality of life, average age of death, average
income, affordability of education, percentage of unemployed people and the sort.

Which will tell us nothing more than how organized or unorganized the countrys
government is. Does the government have anything to do with culture? I would say it
does. Governments were established after a long processes that involve anything from
local laws to war. So the government has much to do with how the citizens of their
country see other cultures.
At some point Benedict claims that morality is simply whatever a culture deems
normal behavior. The veracity of such claim depends on the interpretation of the reader.
Is this to say that Consensus Ethics are the one and only definition of what morality is?
If that was her intender message I completely disagree. But if she was trying to say that
people inside a culture will base their judgements on concepts that have been
established as normal, I completely agree. Slavery was seen as something normal and
completely legal because the ideals of people back then dictated that there was nothing
wrong with it. Still, there were others who were against. The majority deemed slavery as
the norm, but there was still a minority trying to tell the world how wrong it was. So
saying that morality is whatever a culture deems normal does not equal saying a culture
is completely homogeneous and undiversified. Benedict also said The very eyes with
which we see the problem are conditioned by the long traditional habits of our own
society. Which is similar to what was stated at the beginning of this document, and it
definitely applies to her, to me and to everyone who has ever formulated an opinion.
As for Pojman, Id be tempted to think that college students are indeed more
relativists. Through the years students have to take different classes, with different
teachers. Some of those classes are like this one, they try to expand their way of
thinking and help them see the world in a different way, or help them develop critical

thinking skills so they can better understand whats happening around them so they are
able to form coherent conclusions and opinions. When a student has to take such class
they are usually obligated to take on a different position (depending on the teacher) and
embrace what they are being taught even when they dont fully believe in its validity
because their grades and their future, if you must, depends on them passing the class.
This process will certainly make them change their specific views. Sometimes what
theyre currently learning contradicts that which they have already learned. This makes
leads the students to be a lot more relative about everything.
Subjective relativism says that each person is their own authority when it comes
to morality, and the source of their principles. Conservatism, on the other hand says that
principles have already been pre-established by society. Each person is, in fact, free to
choose what they believe and they are indeed the source of their principles, but still,
their minds are being corrupted by what they see every they, and what they have been
exposed to since they were born. There are definitely no universal truths, but there are
also things that are similar in every culture (keeping in mind that they are not
homogenous and undiversified) that remain the same, and many would agree that
certain things like killing other human beings is wrong. Should we not interfere with
other cultures if they consider killing to be normal? Probably not. But our own beliefs,
even more so if its such an accepted belief, will still makes up feel like we need to do
something.
Does moral relativism have a bad effect on society? Perhaps it does. Society
works better when its united, when people live in harmony and everyone is able to
understand or at least try to have some empathy for other people around them.

If moral relativism implicates that everyone is their own moral authority, and the
source of their very own principles, then it also implicates that not everyone will think the
same way. All the human beings cant possibly be on the same page. When were not
on the same page conflicts arise. People will take different sides and they will debate
which side is better until Consensus Ethics kick in and the disputes are settled. This
wont provide and absolute truth, this wont please everyone. But it will surely enough
give an end to the existing conflict and it will provide a satisfactory decision to that
majority.
To summarize, there isnt a holistic way to look at morality and everything it
entails. We have to look at all the facts, whys, hows and whos if we want to evaluate
something and reach a conclusion that satisfies all the requirements of an investigation.