Introduction
Objectivism and relativism are opposite, constantly debating sides in the philosophy of morals and ethics. In the field of universal morality, a good example of it would be Christian ethics. Its proponents claim that moral principles are objective because such parameters as rightness and wrongness, virtues, and vices are determined by the presence of God (West, n.d.). This position is consistent and logical, considering God is the only universal and omnipotent entity in the Christian worldview. This fact makes morals also possess the properties of universality. Ethical relativists can successfully challenge this theory if they use the value systems of other Abrahamic and world religions for contrast.
Another philosophical theory that holds an objectivist stance on morality is Kantianism. Within this idea of Kant, ethics is objective because it is subject to categorical imperatives, which are “universally applicable, to every person, in every situation, regardless of their personal goals and inhibitions” (Kantian ethics, 2022, para. 3). It is logical because these manifest the law of reason, the universal rule that pre-existed human rationality, in a Kantian perspective. Moral relativists’ counterarguments to Kantianism may be challenging the definitions of objective rationality, humaneness, and reason.
On Moral Obligations
The possibility of violating moral obligations depends on such parameters of an individual’s ethical viewpoint as its subjectivity or objectivity and its religious or secular basis. If a person’s moral code is subjective or worldly, or both, then there are fewer or no external restraints of a higher power that would serve as an additional barrier to the violation of moral duties. The same applies to rank order; subjective and atheistic ethical models lack the deity or universal injunction that would prohibit doing so. In objective or religious morality, the breaking of moral norms or their ordering is less possible because this threatens the meaning of the existence of humankind and the person or their afterlife.
The consequentialist and utilitarian types of moral duty are not the only ones. For example, in Kantianism, maintaining ethical correctness and consistency is a central moral obligation (Kantian ethics, 2022). I prefer the standard argument for the absence of absoluteness in moral duty; it says that “the truth or justification of all judgments is not absolute or universal, but relative to some group of persons” (Gowans, 2021, para. 13). Moreover, objectivist theories require the individual to take many ideas and rules for granted.
On Morality Theories
Virtue ethics is one of the earliest philosophical theories of morality. Later thinkers such as Kant, Bentham, and Lamprecht were inspired by this Aristotelian concept when formulating their models. Virtue ethics and Kantianism focus on the person’s character, but duty is central for Kant’s proponent, not a virtue. Virtue theory and utilitarianism regard happiness and goodness as the true goal of any action. However, the former considers it only within the scope of the individual, while the latter encompasses all persons affected (Hasa, 2019). The similarity between the Aristotelian concept and ethical pluralism lies in their focus on the components of true moral character. Their difference is that the ancient theory of virtue implies a particular set of virtues, while moral pluralism does not. Ethics and virtues are interdependent and interconnected phenomena. Conceptual separation would lead to losing their social and scholarly meanings.
Conclusion
Over 20 years have passed since the novel age started, and humanity is witnessing the emergence of new moral dilemmas. Among those is freedom of speech vs. societal safety and vice versa (Hanonick, 2021). From a utilitarian viewpoint, safety must be selected because it will reduce major public threats and social conflicts. Kantianism adept would say free speech is the option because it is the expression of free will, the fulfillment of the categorical imperative, which is correct. I am sure that an analytical and exploratory dialogue and dispute between Western and Eastern philosophies of morality is possible. The similarities to discuss would include the religious and secular components of the virtues and vices, and the perception of the death penalty and the separated state of means and ends would be differences.
References
Gowans, C. (2021). Moral relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Hanonick, A. (2021). The free speech dilemma: Why “free speech” doesn’t mean “free from consequences.”The University News. Web.
Hasa. (2019). Difference between virtue ethics and utilitarianism. Pedia. Web.
Kantian ethics. (2022). Corporate Finance Institute. Web.
West, S. D. (n.d.). Christian ethics. The Gospel Coalition. Web.