Some of the questions that Ethics is concerned with are "What do words like 'right', 'wrong', 'virtue', 'vice' mean?", "Why are right actions right?", and "What actions are right?". These are only a few of the questions that fall under the part of philosophy called Ethics, but they should give you some idea of the sorts of things Ethics is concerned with. We have already seen Plato address some of these questions. Now we will see Mill deal with these questions as well.
There are five basic approaches we can take to moral theory: absolutism, universalism, relativism, skepticism, and nihilism. Allow me to give very brief characterizations of each of these approaches. Ethical nihilism denies that there are any moral truths whatsoever. Ethical skepticism denies, not that there are moral truths, but that we can ever come to know what they are. Ethical relativism asserts that moral truths vary from person to person or culture to culture. Ethical universalism asserts that moral truths do not vary in this fashion. Ethical absolutism takes universalism one step further, and denies that moral truths depend on human nature. (Hence, absolutism is a stronger version of universalism.) Plato is an ethical absolutist.
Ethical Relativism has gained a lot of support in recent years. People have become aware of cultural differences and have come to value tolerance among peoples. Often we hear this sentiment expressed in questions like "Who are we to judge . . . ?" or in comments like "Well, just because it's right for you, doesn't mean that it's right for everyone." While I do not propose to deal with all varieties of relativism in this class, I do want to make a few points about it.
The first thing we ought to notice is extreme relativism seems to be self-refuting. If there are no universal truths whatsoever, we can ask if that extreme relativistic truth is itself universally true. If the answer is yes, then there is at least one universal truth. If there answer is no, then it does not cover all truths, so some truths are universal. This very extreme form of relativism seems problematic.
We should also note that relativism does not guarantee tolerance. Think about it this way. If there is a culture where they are intolerant of a whole class of people, what should a relativist say? Well, that culture has, as a moral truth, that a whole class of people ought to be oppressed, or perhaps eliminated. The relativist must say, to be consistent, that we cannot judge this culture. So, we do not guarantee that tolerance will be secured in this case. Furthermore, it isn't clear how the relativist can consistently maintain that we cannot judge, for who is the relativist to tell me what is right and wrong?
One final comment about this issue. Merely because we reject relativism, we do not need to take the position that we have a monopoly on truth and morality. I may claim that morality is universal, and still not think that I know everything about morality, or even that the Western view of morality is entirely correct. Indeed, if we think tolerance is a value that all cultures should embrace, we have adopted a universal position. Relativism, then, need not be the only theory compatible with tolerance. Indeed, it might not be compatible with it at all.
Back to MSU HOME
Last updated: June 12, 2001
URL: http://web.mnstate.edu/mouch/101/ho6.html