This is a continuation of my series on the origins and tenets of contemporary philosophies of morals and ethics:
According to the view of the relativist, the awareness of societal customs, and not moral truths, are the only standards for achieving situational harmony. These customs are not sanctioned, for that would imply an independent standard of right and wrong. As there can be no independent standard, every standard is culture-oriented.
For the relativist, the study of history and culture, establishes that past behavior throughout the entire world was fostered by madness; man always thought that he was right, which led to wars, persecutions, slavery, racism, etc. The relativist is not compelled to learn from the mistakes of the past to be right; rather, [he] is unencumbered by an obligation to be right at all.
Relativists do not believe that there are self-evident moral principles that are true for everyone. [They] say that the customs and traditions for the society in which they live determine one’s moral judgments. These judgments may have been handed down for centuries, but their age or past application does not secure them as true standards; they are simply norms that certain society has developed for itself. What is right, is what society says is right, and whatever is considered good for society, must be right.
The relativism philosophy advances the notion that moral problems arise out of a conflict of impulses or desires. Therefore, the goal of moral deliberation is to find a course of action that will turn a conflict into harmony. Each individual problem must be viewed in the light of the actions necessary to solve it, with some understanding of the consequences, which naturally follow the actions. A choice is right if it leads to a solution of the specific conflict; however, there is no absolute right or good, as every successful solution gives rise to new problems that must be evaluated on their own terms. Moral rules are only hypotheses, or tentative assumptions, which have been found to work in certain circumstances. Accordingly, there are no principles or standards that are right for all people at all times. New situations demand new approaches. What was once valid may be inappropriate now.
In the relativist’s view, one ought to do whatever fulfills the highest moral rule in a situation. When this is done, such action is right, and in no way can be wrong. Within this context, there are no tragic moral dilemmas. The lesser of two evils is a misnomer because the relativist argues, the lesser evil is actually good!
