Ethics Of Morality: Objectivism Over Relativism

Introduction

Ethics also known as moral philosophy involves identification, defending, and recommending philosophy concepts of right and wrong conduct. Among many, these two schools of thought will be focused on: moral objectivism and relativism.

Background

In the scenario that a young lady who was 25 years old was strangulated by a dog chain by a ward boy a day before her wedding to her fiancée. The ward boy walked free from jail after six years of imprisonment and is supposedly working in a hospital. The strangulation caused hypoxic damage to her brain cells and left her paralyzed, blind and deaf – virtually a vegetable. Presently, she is 64 years old and has not seen sun-light for three and half decades. She is religiously and sincerely fed by the sisters of the hospital. No one from her family is concerned about her existence. Her parents have passed on. One day she asks one of her nurses to give her the death needle; what should the nurse do? This would be visited later on.

Definition of Terms

Moral relativism is a moral philosophical principle based on opinion and convention. It generally preaches that “one ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when one disagrees about the morality of it”. Meanwhile, objectivism relates to the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion. Moral objectivists believe things are either objectively right or wrong. This concept can be easily confused for intuitionism. Intuitionism is the theory that states primary truths and principles are known directly by intuition. Moral intuitions are strong, stable and immediate moral beliefs. This point of this section is slightly off topic, but it is important to note.

Simply put, the main difference between intuitionism and objectivism is that the former has absence of justification in its process, while this is evident in moral objectivism. Consequentially, the presence of and independence from opinion is the major difference between objectivism and relativism. However, I think moral objectivism is more attractive than moral relativism. My reasons and examples on my stance will be explained below. Illustrative examples and stance on subject matter. I think moral objectivism seems more attractive than moral relativism in most situations. My reasons for this are highlighted below.

Argument for the Affirmative Role in Human Fulfillment

Being that moral objectivism involves the judgment of actions that are objectively wright or wrong; for this to be possible the virtues of objectivism have to be noted. These virtues are derived from our basic human nature in some cases and are based on the key principle of rationality. Some of these virtues are values that contribute in the achieving of the intrinsic goods necessary for human fulfillment, which is our apex desire as human beings.

For most readers the case below will be seen as objectively wrong, if just thought of, and looked at, for the very first time. Lisa was very poor with very few, if any, options in Yemen. She was raising two young children by herself and trying to pay off her father's medical bills when she saw an advert on a billboard for an agency that arranged jobs in the United States. They told her that, for $3,000, they could arrange for her to get a job in Espanola, New Mexico at a dairy factory for $10 an hour — three times as much as she could earn in Yemen. Lisa borrowed money to pay the $3,000 agency fee, and an extra $1,000 for her plane ticket.

When Lisa arrived in Espanola, a man picked her up at the airport and brought her to a house in the suburbs, where a woman took her passport for 'safekeeping'. The woman then told her that the factory job had not come through, and instead she would be working in the lab downstairs, which, Lisa discovered, produced crystal methamphetamine and other illegal drugs. Everyone but Lisa knew that she had been tricked to come to the States to work at the illegal drug lab, not a factory. Everyone also knew what would happen to her if she refused to do the job. Lisa refused at first, but had no other options to pay her bills or support her family.

So, in this case can it be said that the drug traffickers are right for their actions? To answer this, I think the drug traffickers are wrong as a moral objectivist. This is simply because this is restricting Lisa’s productivity in her chosen work at the center of life's concerns; thereby restricting her human fulfillment. To justify all these, objectivism also supports benevolence and justice toward other people: this is not present in the case of the traffickers towards Lisa. Objectivism also entails integrity, allowing no breach between our principles and our actions: this was not present as Lisa was deceived on various occasions. All in all, this is based on “universal principles”.

Argument for the Prevention of the Misuse of Tolerance

The major argument for relativism is based on tolerance. I proffer to debunk this argument. Firstly, tolerance and respect are often confused. Tolerance deals with endurance towards repeated subjection of a particular thing while respect in this context deals with regard towards each individuals opinion regarding ethics. In the background case study that deals with euthanasia, I think that if the premise of tolerance is followed that means that there would be a state of anarchy as anybody could murder any fellow human. Furthermore, tolerance here also preaches that murdering any human can be right just when the individual who does the deed feels he is justified – thinking “he has relieved someone of their suffering”. I say no to that. The right to life and right to die should expressly be restricted from opinions. Exceptions to this include capital punishment because this is a form of legal justice in nations that it is being practiced.

Conclusion

To wrap it up, it should be noted that I am not saying that every moral objectivist gets the same outcome in all instances. No, I am supporting objectivism because of the consistency in the rational process it adopts that in some cases is derived from human nature. Therefore, I think objectivism seems more attractive than relativism in most cases of ethics.

Bibliography

1. Austin, M. S.–T. (2019). Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved May 2019, from McCombs School of Business: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-relativism
2. Austin, M. W. ( 2012, January 23). Rejecting Moral Relativism. Retrieved May 2019, from psychologytoday.com: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism
3. Hauptli, B. W. (2007 ). A Quick-and-Dirty Argument Against Moral Relativism. A Quick-and-Dirty Argument Against Moral Relativism.
4. Huemer, M. (1992). Moral Objectivism.
5. Index, P. (2002-2019). Moral objectivism. Retrieved May 2019, from Philosophy Index: http://www.philosophy-index.com/ethics/meta-ethics/objectivism.php
6. Silver, M. ( 2011). Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism. Retrieved May 2019, from philosophynow.org: https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Our_Morality_A_Defense_of_Moral_Objectivism
7. Study.com. (2003-2019). Arguments For & Against Moral Relativism. Retrieved May 2019, from Study.com: https://study.com/academy/lesson/arguments-for-against-moral-relativism.html
8. Thomas, W. ( 2010, June 15). What is the Objectivist Position in Morality (Ethics)? Retrieved May 2019, from Atlas Society: https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/what-is-objectivism/objectivism-101-blog/3369-what-is-the-objectivist-position-in-morality-ethics
9. Westacott, E. (n.d.). Moral Relativism. Retrieved May 2019, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
10. Wikimedia Foundation, I. ( 2018, August 19). Moral objectivism. Retrieved May 2019, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism
11. Wikimedia Foundation, I. ( 2019, April 18 ). Moral relativism. Retrieved May 2019, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism