An argument I wrote for my Ethics class:
Argument for Mitigated Moral Relativism:
Society has moral absolutes that were granted when the social contract was formed. These rights are based in the tacit consent that the members of a society give. It is important to remember that the rights imparted in the social contract are ones that secure property, livelihood, freedom, and physical protection from harm. Commonly labeled as “natural” or “inalienable” rights, these moral rights are inherent claims in most cultures. These rights are functions by which society in general can function and without these rights, there would be no society, only anarchy. The rest of the moral codes in a societal relationship are culturally relative and are determined by the moral progress in society.
Even with these moral absolutes in place, the rights are subject to minor change oftentimes due to the coldest of necessities: survival. That is not to say that a society would feel it pertinent to violate natural rights on a daily basis, but that it would sometimes feel justified in violating them for sufficient cause. As an example, reference the ancient Greek policy of leaving handicapped children to die of exposure. This action was never entered into gladly, yet they realized that there was no place in a barbaric world for someone who is disabled. These actions are not always morally correct, but are demanded by the situation with no escape possible. What is often considered abominable in our modern society (i.e. infanticide, rejection of the elderly, cannibalism, etc…) has often been a common practice in more savage societies. Always keep in mind that societies function in a way that is necessary for continuation of the gene pool. In a cruel environment, a society is forced to be cruel. It cannot afford the price that is extracted by acting as if they lived in a civilized western country.
Rights that exist outside of the realm of inalienables are subject to relativism. Often more concerned with less important aspects of life, they are not necessary for the continued survival of society and are not therefore covered under the social contract.
Argument for Mitigated Moral Relativism:
Society has moral absolutes that were granted when the social contract was formed. These rights are based in the tacit consent that the members of a society give. It is important to remember that the rights imparted in the social contract are ones that secure property, livelihood, freedom, and physical protection from harm. Commonly labeled as “natural” or “inalienable” rights, these moral rights are inherent claims in most cultures. These rights are functions by which society in general can function and without these rights, there would be no society, only anarchy. The rest of the moral codes in a societal relationship are culturally relative and are determined by the moral progress in society.
Even with these moral absolutes in place, the rights are subject to minor change oftentimes due to the coldest of necessities: survival. That is not to say that a society would feel it pertinent to violate natural rights on a daily basis, but that it would sometimes feel justified in violating them for sufficient cause. As an example, reference the ancient Greek policy of leaving handicapped children to die of exposure. This action was never entered into gladly, yet they realized that there was no place in a barbaric world for someone who is disabled. These actions are not always morally correct, but are demanded by the situation with no escape possible. What is often considered abominable in our modern society (i.e. infanticide, rejection of the elderly, cannibalism, etc…) has often been a common practice in more savage societies. Always keep in mind that societies function in a way that is necessary for continuation of the gene pool. In a cruel environment, a society is forced to be cruel. It cannot afford the price that is extracted by acting as if they lived in a civilized western country.
Rights that exist outside of the realm of inalienables are subject to relativism. Often more concerned with less important aspects of life, they are not necessary for the continued survival of society and are not therefore covered under the social contract.
