Is morality relative or universal?

Preface

In the vast and boundless field of ethics, the essence of morality has always been a fascinating mystery. Moral universalism advocates a set of moral principles applicable to all humanity, seemingly revealing a universal ethical order.

However, moral relativism is also becoming more and more effulgent, advocating that moral standards vary according to culture, society, or individuals. In this perspective, we find that there are vastly different moral concepts among different cultures and societies, viewing moral evaluation as subjective and rejecting absolute and universally applicable moral standards.

Moral historicism emphasizes the evolution of moral concepts and norms, believing that they are constrained by the special environment of history and culture. This requires us to examine historical, cultural, and social backgrounds in order to gain a deeper understanding of the roots of moral values.

So, is morality relative or universal? How do the diverse backgrounds of history, culture, and society influence the cultivation of morality? What kind of moral differences will we encounter in different positions and environments? In the latest issue of UM's discussion board, we had a profound discussion on this complex and thought-provoking topic.

01

The Definition and Relativity of Moral Values

Isabella Wang: I feel that the first thing to discuss is the source of morality: whether it is the construction of social culture or a priori existence of "meta ethics". I personally favor the former, but this is equivalent to denying moral universalism. I don't know if anyone supports the universality of morality and I'm curious about the reasons.

Richard Yiu: Personally, I believe that moral values are relative.

Before that, let us first make a definition: the so-called moral values refer to the views and opinions on moral concepts, what’s right and wrong. When people mention "moral values," some words usually pop up, such as prosperity, democracy, civilization, and harmony. However, if moral values were just a few empty concepts, they would be meaningless. Therefore, moral values are not just these concepts, but the meaning behind them and how these concepts should be presented in reality.

Because cultures and even individuals around the world have differences, even if the same moral principles are presented to them, they will be combined with local/individual cognition to synthesize different values. For example, in the eyes of legalists, "the father steals a sheep, and the son exposes him." is moral, because the son is upright; However, in the eyes of Confucianism, the definition of integrity is not like this: "The father conceals misdeeds for his son, and son conceals misdeeds for his father, that’s where integrity lies.” It can be seen that placing the same moral principle (i.e. integrity) in front of different people leads to vastly different moral values.

Slurry Pentacle: Relatively, moral values are driven by class and group interests.

Richard Yiu: Of course, moral values are also universal at certain levels and there is general consensus, such as the concepts of human rights and justice mentioned earlier.

Isabella Wang: Agreed, but there are also some classic counterexamples against moral relativism. For example, "killing someone when they are performing kind acts to everyone” is generally considered morally wrong.

Richard Yiu: Yes, but having consensus does not mean that everyone's values are unified.

Blank: Morality has universal principles, which serves the objective will of the public, and has a certain degree of compulsion. Relative moral values generally subjectively influence concrete facts.

Richard Yiu: So this is equivalent to the law?

Isabella Wang: However, I feel that there is a certain distinction between moral and values. Values depend on individuals (or cultural values that depend on recognized values within this cultural group), while morality is a more abstract concept.

Richard Yiu: Law is the carrier of morality, but it cannot represent morality itself, for there are still gaps between them.

The law serves the public, mixing the moral values of all people to form a Compromise.

Isabella Wang: Normally, morality should be higher than the law. For example, picking up garbage on the street is a matter that everyone supports on a moral level, but not picking it up does not violate the law.

Blank: Morality is not very capable of demonstrating the law, there is no necessary connection. And now there is a saying that "authoritarian legislation", which still shows certain conflicts between law and morality. Universalized moral principles are based only on those normative actions that you can simultaneously accept as universal laws, while mandatory rational morality is the presentation of objective principles.

02

The Connection Between Moral Values and Society

Jasmine: Are moral values influenced by personal beliefs, culture, and social background? Are there any universally accepted moral principles or values that transcend different cultures and societies? This is the second question that can be discussed and considered.

Richard Yu: Indeed. For example, reverence for ancestors.

Isabella Wang: I feel that the most helpful examples for this type of discussion may be real-life scenes. For example, what can we think of as an example of universally applicable moral principles?

Jasmine: Some general examples include honesty and trustworthiness, respect and kindness, caring for the environment, not harming others, tolerance and understanding, and so on.

Kelly: In extreme situations, moral principles are no longer applicable, right?

Richard Yu: They still apply. According to pragmatism, there are several moral principles, some of which must be applicable to extreme situations.

The so-called inapplicability is simply that the moral principles we commonly use are not applicable. However, this does not mean that those less commonly used moral principles are detached from the category of moral principles.

Jasmine: But it cannot be denied that in extreme situations, when not bound by the law, people will do many things that violate "morality". For example, in the case of the cannibalism of the Mignonette, the ship was stranded on a deserted island, with some people on board dead while others survived. Those who survived were starving and had no choice but to eat the bodies of their deceased companions. Cannibalism is naturally not accepted in a rule of law society and is considered an "immoral" behavior, but in extreme cases, the morality of this behavior remains to be debated.

Isabella Wang: I feel that this case does not necessarily fully support moral relativism. Perhaps it can be said that cannibalism purely based on personal emotions is immoral, and in situations of life and death, cannibalism is necessary (one person saves ten people). Even if it is not moral, it is excusable. So the former can still be considered a universal moral principle.

Edythe: Respecting life may be the first principle of this. It’s universal.

Slurry Pentacle: If we want to discuss this, we may need to set aside elements such as rationality. Let’s see what is the ultimate goal of human being as a kind ofanimal. Maybe it's about surviving.

Richard Yiu: Maybe it's still reproduction to let genes survive.

Blank: Basic survival needs.

Richard Yu: Mencius said, “hunger and desire are instincts” , which is very insightful. One is to keep oneself alive, and the other is to give oneself a future.".

In addition, there is also a situation where "the masses are all accomplices", where society oppresses individuals, causing them to commit crimes under excessive pressure, and ultimately leading to society blaming and judging them. This is considered immoral, and society is the immoral side. Seemingly an individual crime, in reality, it is actually the entire society that is fueling the flames.

A classic case is like the Gotham Joker. If there are any real cases, there is also the Thai cannibal demon Zee-Oui.

Slurry Pentacle: Yes, the conflict between natural law theory and legal positivism.

Isabella Wang: But it's hard to say who's to blame, because there must be people in this society who suffer more than criminals but don't choose to commit crimes.

Slurry Pentacle: In fact, if the whole society is indifferent to the behavior of criminals, then the crime itself is not a crime.

Richard Yiu: But in terms of morality (i.e. objective perspective), crime still exists.

Isabella Wang: How is morality defined here? Why can objective morality be assumed to exist?

Cong Gang: It feels a bit like natural law.

Jasmine: Bystanders generally believe that society is the culprit, while those who have experienced it often attribute responsibility and punishment to the culprits. In Tostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, the author points out that "if social organizations are normal, then all criminal behavior will be eliminated immediately, because losing the object of protest, everyone will immediately become upright."

Morality is largely composed and defined by society, and the concept of morality is also a common convention. In primitive society, the moral category was ambiguous. Although there was no cannibalism among the same kind, polygyny or polyandry , and savage fighting were considered normal behavior. With the increasing level of social civilization and clearer moral constraints, laws and governments have begun to constrain people's behavior. Most unethical behavior in civilized society is illegal or goes against public order and morality, but it is difficult to equate morality and law.

Slurry Pentacle: A natural jurist has proposed a The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - quite impressive.

Richard Yiu: For example, in the case of Zee-Oui, everyone saw Zee-Oui eating people, but they did not turn a blind eye to their own discrimination against Zee-Oui. They may not have understood that it was their discrimination that led Zee-Oui to desperation.

Chimera: Before the formation of organized human society, did people have universally applicable moral principles? Ethics and morality, as a product of society, arise from different ways of social composition, which is clearly an artificial and relative concept.

Slurry Pentacle: Hobbes believed that without government and other organizations, there would be a war of all against all.

Richard Yiu: People may generally have some rules accumulated from experience. And these experiences are taken from a system which is “open and inexhausted. This system is eternal, but it is too big to be fully visible, so people can only think about what this system is like. This system can be understood as morality.

03

How to define the justice of natural law

Background: There have been various different understandings of the meaning of natural law in the history of human understanding. But it usually refers to the collection of basic and ultimate principles of justice. It originated from ancient Greek philosophy, in which the Sophists distinguished between "nature" and "law", believing that "nature" is wise and eternal, while “law” is arbitrary and only based on expediency. Natural law advocates man’s natural rights, equality for all, and justice first.

Isabella Wang: How is "justice" determined under natural law here?

Jasmine: In The Republic, "justice" is considered a "beautiful thing," achieving the best balance and harmony in an orderly social structure. This includes the rule of the wise, the division of labor among the three parts (soldiers, philosophers, producers), and the balance of individual souls.

Slurry Pentacle: So people formed Leviathan.

Richard Yiu: Well said! But "beautiful" is also a relative concept.

Jasmine: Yes, "beautiful" is not only an external beauty, but also a way of expressing "truth" and "goodness".

04

The Integration and Evolution of Moral Relativism and Moral Universalism

Jasmine: Returning to our topic - Moral Historicism emphasizes that the evolution and development of moral concepts and principles are specific to history and culture. It believes that moral concepts are gradually formed in the process of history and are influenced by cultural, social, and historical conditions. Given this, can moral relativism and moral universalism coexist or merge with each other?

Edythe: For example, due to academic pressure and social pressure, mentors tend to prioritize students who are not good at socializing in order to improve their output. This ultimately leads to unbearable pressure and neglectful behavior. From the perspective of mentors, it is necessary to choose relative morality to defend oneself, and taking sides for neglectful behavior is a common way to avoid harming this perspective.

Jasmine: Different positions naturally lead to changes in moral values. When we are pedestrians, we hate vehicles that do not yield to us, but when we drive, we despise pedestrians crossing the road.

Richard Yiu: Agreed. Since moral values are relative in terms of space and individual dimensions, moral values tend more to be relative in terms of time dimensions.

Edythe: Both goodwill and malice on the timeline generally lead to different moral propositions. For example, intentionally providing convenience for cheating can increase the cheating rate. Setting morality strictly at the beginning, such as reciting the Bible before an exam, will subconsciously prevent cheating, which is a moral behavior with a common judgment. In the former, in a relaxed environment, It has become a relative judgment (because you have provided me with convenience, no plagiarism, no plagiarism - an example I saw yesterday from Predictably Irrational).

Richard Yiu: Yes, so the environment can significantly shape and even change a person's moral values.

Edythe: I support moral relativity more. When life begins and ends is relative in different legal systems, for example, some advocate for cardiovascular death, while others advocate for brain death. The disposal of one's own organ authority and the burial method of the body are also relative in different moral judgments, for example, celestial burial in Tibet. In addition, in extreme situations such as war and famine, morality is more likely to tend towards relativity.

Richard Yiu: That's right, and many people cannot accept becoming a body donor. Under common values, this may be immoral because the deceased can never be buried in peace. However, at the same time, more and more people are beginning to accept and respect the option of becoming a general teacher. The transformation of these values mainly comes from the development of medical technology, which in turn answers the ninth question.

Jasmine: Yes, due to the progress and changes of the times, moral values have also evolved and been influenced by various social factors.

Richard Yiu: That's right, and people's views on LGBTQ and contraceptive rights are also gradually changing.

Jasmine: It’s commonly believed that moral is relative, but moral has and needs to have universal/absolute aspects. Given this, how to define the standards of moral behavior within the framework of relativity? In other words, how to find absolute in countless "relative" situations?

Richard Yiu: For example, if your sister-in-law is drowning, help her with hands; The world is drowning, help it with principles. Although the forms are different, the purposes are all unified, that is, to help. So the "absolute" here is "to help others". Of course, this is a very simple example, these are just two situations. Whether it's technological development or moral conservatism, they are all aimed at making people's lives more secure and convenient, so the "absolute" of these two is to benefit the people.

Jasmine: There seems to be no "absolute" moral concept. If we sacrifice a small portion of people and save a large number of people, do we have the right to do so? This may seem moral, but isn't it a violation of the absolute moral concept of not harming others?

Richard Yiu: Not harming others is a common moral concept, but the underlying logic here is to "ensure the safety of others as much as possible.". So under this underlying logic, sacrificing a small portion of people and saving a large number of people is also acceptable.

Jasmine: The famous trolley’s problem: You are a train driver with five people tied to the track ahead. You can pull down the control stick to modify the track, but there is a person tied to the other track. Would you kill one person to save those five people? It is worth exploring which choice is moral.

Edythe: The general public's absolute judgment is also driven by unconscious and subconscious curiosity, leading to widespread moral push, such as AI and the history of train development. However, scientists usually regret becoming conservative immediately after discovering it. They make relative moral judgments because their alarmist rhetoric aligns with their position. They only discover that they are still unable to build a good environment and can only immerse themselves in the apocalyptic crisis, but still ignore evolution, Even if one day AI becomes a new species and humans become gorillas.

Richard Yiu: The public's judgment can always be put under the guise of morality, but it is unclear whether they are truly starting from a moral standpoint or whether they are simply unwilling to accept a new trend of ideas/inventions/technologies.

Edythe: Life is inviolable, and the common moral judgment may be sacrificing multiple people, individual over collective (i.e. Kant). Relative moral judgment may be based on situations and consequences, choosing the perspective of collective over individual. The former values quality, while the latter values quantity.

Conclusion

In this discussion, we delved into the relativity and universality of moral values, covering the definition of moral, the relationship between society and moral, the definition of justice in natural law, and the integration and evolution of moral relativism and moral universalism.

In terms of the relativity of moral values, we understand that individual, cultural, social, and historical factors can influence an individual's moral values. Some viewpoints believe that morality is relative, and people have different moral standards in different cultures and societies. However, some argue for the existence of universally applicable moral principles beyond cultural and social differences.

In terms of the integration of moral relativism and moral universalism, we observe that moral concepts evolve in different periods and environments. We discussed some practical examples, such as the education system, medical ethics, and bioethics, revealing the impact of social development and technological progress on moral values.

Finally, we mentioned some moral dilemmas, such as the moral paradox and the trolley’s problem, which sparked a profound reflection on whether sacrificing a few to save the majority is in line with morality. During this process, we also observed that public opinions may be influenced by potential biases and emotions.

Overall, this discussion showcases the diversity and complexity of moral concepts, emphasizing multiple factors that need to be taken into account when discussing moral issues. Whether moral values are relative or universal is a complex topic that involves the influence of individual, cultural, social, and global values. Moral values are universal in certain aspects, such as those based on the principles of human rights and respect for individual dignity, which are universal and irresistible moral laws. On the other hand, moral values are relative. Different stances lead to changes in people's standards and perspectives for measuring things, as well as differences in moral values due to cultural, contemporary, and individual differences. This is due to changes in social development and cultural evolution. For the understanding and definition of morality, it is necessary to find a balance between relativity and universality, while considering the relationship between individuals and society, in order to construct a more comprehensive moral view.

Thank you to all UM community members who participated in the discussion! See you next time!

If you want to join the UM community to participate in subsequent discussions and obtain further information, please contact email: Isabellawsc@hotmail.com

​
​