Ethics Guide (part 7): Are there universal moral rules?

Ethics Guide (part 7): Are there universal moral rules?

Terms, Use, and Definition

ENGL101, Essay 2—Ethical Argument

One of the big questions in moral philosophy is whether or not there are unchanging moral rules that apply in all cultures and at all times.

Moral absolutism

Some people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is called moral absolutism.

Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and that these rules apply to everyone.

Immoral acts - acts that break these moral rules - are wrong in themselves, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences of those acts.

Absolutism takes a universal view of humanity - there is one set of rules for everyone - which enables the drafting of universal rules - such as the Declaration of Human Rights.

Religious views of ethics tend to be absolutist.

Why people disagree with moral absolutism:

Many of us feel that the consequences of an act or the circumstances surrounding it are relevant to whether that act is good or bad

Absolutism doesn't fit with respect for diversity and tradition

Different cultures have had different attitudes to issues like war ©

Moral relativism

Moral relativists say that if you look at different cultures or different periods in history you'll find that they have different moral rules.

Therefore it makes sense to say that "good" refers to the things that a particular group of people approve of.

Moral relativists think that that's just fine, and dispute the idea that there are some objective and discoverable 'super-rules' that all cultures ought to obey. They believe that relativism respects the diversity of human societies and responds to the different circumstances surrounding human acts.

Why people disagree with moral relativism:

Many of us feel that moral rules have more to them than the general agreement of a group of people - that morality is more than a super-charged form of etiquette

Many of us think we can be good without conforming to all the rules of society

Moral relativism has a problem with arguing against the majority view: if most people in a society agree with particular rules, that's the end of the matter. Many of the improvements in the world have come about because people opposed the prevailing ethical view - moral relativists are forced to regard such people as behaving "badly"

Any choice of social grouping as the foundation of ethics is bound to be arbitrary

Moral relativism doesn't provide any way to deal with moral differences between societies

Moral somewhere-in-between-ism

Most non-philosophers think that both of the above theories have some good points and think that

there are a few absolute ethical rules

but a lot of ethical rules depend on the culture

Ethics are a system of moral principles (not morals, but moral 'principles') and a branch of philosophy which defines what is good for individuals and society [based on a chosen ethical standard: such a Christianity].

Print this page

This page has been archived and is no longer updated.  The Ethics Guide, provided by the BBC, can be located online through http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml#h1 and accessed readily.  All content from this specific ethics guide is property of the BBC.

Compiled by Jeanette L. H. Dick © 2018

BBC Ethics Guide (part 7)