Introduction
Moral relativism is a theory that morality is relative and different people hold different truths. There are two forms of moral relativism: cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. According to cultural relativism, morality depends upon culture. According to ethical subjectivism, morality depends upon individuals. Moral relativism denies the universal existence of truth or morality. Thus, there is no definition of good and bad; there is no goodness and badness; there can be good and bad only within a specific context. From the standpoint of moral relativism, the specific activity can be good for one person but be bad for another. If to assume that moral relativism is true, then it is impossible to discuss good and bad outside the specific situation.
Main text
Utilitarian moral theory, on the contrary, provides clear distinction between good and bad. According to the utilitarian moral theory, an action is right only if it produces the highest good. From this perspective, an action is considered to be morally right only when it results in the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.
Jeremy Bentham argued that the consequences of the human actions could be counted in order to evaluate their merit.
Pleasure or happiness can be measured by considering how long the pleasure lasts, how intensively it is felt, how quickly it follows the action (Kemerling, para.1). From this perspective, the principle of utility defines good and bad by reference to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people affected by or involved in the action.
Argument from disagreement points out that different individuals and cultures have different moral beliefs (Is Morality Relative.., para.6). Morality is a product of culture and personal opinion.
Moreover, there are always exceptions to every moral rule. Sometimes, stealing and lying can be morally justified because there are no moral absolutes.
In addition, moral relativism is supported with the argument from tolerance according to which people should be tolerant with whom they disagree. From this perspective, it is morally wrong to think of one culture being morally better than any other.
However, while moral relativism is highly personal, utilitarian moral theory can be applied universally. Utilitarian theory aims at defining goodness as the best for the largest number of people. As John Stuart Mill wrote, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Kemerling, para.6).
While moral relativism motivates individual approach to every situation, utilitarian theory provides ample guidance for everyday moral actions. Bentham and Mill both argued that moral utilitarianism is intended to guide people by moral rules most of the time.
At the same time, moral relativism does not allow cross-cultural comparisons while sometimes it does seem to be right to judge one norm (value or culture) superior to another (Is Morality Relative.., para.9). Moral relativism denies the legitimate moral comparisons and it does not allow judging whether a changing society is getting worse or better. Notably, all reformers who changed the society for better (abolished slavery, granted women the right to vote, etc) acted against the values of their cultures. Thus, their actions were morally wrong according to the assumptions of moral relativism.
Taking into account the limitations of moral relativism theory, utilitarianism appears to be more justifiable. Mill claimed that universal agreement on the role of moral sanctions in guiding good actions by humans motivates people to do the right things (Kemerling, para.8). No, a single person is free of such feelings as guilt, self-esteem, or conscience. Thus, utilitarianism holds that all people have social feelings on behalf of others.
The fear to be blamed by others or experience the self-blame is enough not to act morally wrong. People desire happiness and each person desires his own happiness. Mill argued that the greatest happiness of everyone is desired by all.
Once I was a witness of my friend cheating during exam. I understood that cheating was morally wrong but I did not know what to do. I could either ignore the cheating of my friend and talk to him after exam or inform the teacher about the incident immediately.
From one side, I was not the one who was cheating and it was the choice of my friend, therefore, I was not in a position to decide. On the other side, my friend was neglecting the academic rules and he would get a grade he did not deserve. I had no time to think about this situation because I had to finish my exam, however, I decided to talk to my friend right after exam.
When I told my friend that I saw him cheating, he answered that it was not my business. It was not easy for me to decide on my next action. If I decided to inform the teacher, my friend would fail the course and other students would not trust me anymore. Nevertheless, I could not just forget about my friend’s cheating because it was morally and ethically wrong; he violated the academic and ethical rules. I decided to talk with my parents and other friends with the hope to get advice; however, the opinion of my friends was divided as well. Some of them advised not to intrude, while others recommended informing the teacher immediately.
Referring to ethical theory of moral relativism, cheating is not justified with cultural relativism or ethical subjectivism. The American students share the belief that cheating is ethically wrong from all perspectives and cannot be justified.
Cheating is not morally justified because of individual differences. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness and badness in general, however, it is possible to define goodness and badness in specific situations. In this current instance of my friend’s cheating, his action can be classified as bad because it resulted in no good for anybody. Nevertheless, I had no doubts that cheating was bad; I hesitated over my further actions; whether or not I had the moral right or obligation to inform the teacher.
The utilitarian moral theory helped me to dissolve the current moral dilemma. According to this moral theory, all people should strive for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Thus, the decision to forget about the cheating of my friend would not hurt anybody as well as it would not bring any benefit. On the other side, my decision to inform the teacher would result in the penalty for my friend while others students would learn a lesson that cheating is wrong. I hesitated whether I was in a position to decide on behalf of my friend and other students. Undoubtedly, the concept of “moral diversity” could be avoided (Moral Relativism, para.3).
I considered cheating morally wrong, the majority of students would agree, but my friend saw no badness in cheating. Other students would know that I was the one to inform the teacher – some of students would support my decision, others would never accept it.
Finally, neither moral relativism nor utilitarian moral theory contributed to my decision. I considered several decisions and none of them would bring the greatest happiness for the people involved. I did not inform the teacher, however, my friendship with the friend ended because of the ethical and moral differences I could not tolerate.
Works Cited
“Is Morality Relative to Individuals or Cultures?” Moral Relativism. 2008. Web.
Kemerling, Garth. “Utilitarianism.”. 2002. Web.
“Moral Relativism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004. Web.