Rev José Mario O Mandía
jmom.honlam.org
Ethical relativism is the doctrine which teaches that there are no absolute truths in ethics. Proponents of this doctrine say that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. This philosophy can be traced back to Herodotus, the Greek historian of the 5th century BC.
Ethical relativism claims to liberate man from the chains of dogmatism and make him independent of God. Ethical relativism is an echo of the first temptation of our first parents (Genesis 3:4-5): “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’”
This is what the moral relativists want – that each one be a god unto himself, determining what is right and wrong. It is clear that in a society where everyone decides what is right or wrong for himself or herself, only anarchy and chaos can ensue.
Ethical relativism spawns many divergent ethical doctrines, all of which reject the intrinsic morality of our actions. Here are some of them.
SITUATION ETHICS
“Situation ethics maintains that moral good and evil result from the situation in which the person finds himself. Hence, it is said that the act cannot be judged alone, but only in its circumstances. It is also called circumstantial ethics.
“For example: John decided not to get drunk on Friday night since he was driving, but on Saturday he got drunk because he was home and no one would be hurt by his action. Thinking that he acted morally in not driving drunk, he ignored the [intrinsic evil] of drunkenness itself” (A Fernandez and J Socias, Our Moral Life in Christ).
Situation ethics was refuted by Pius XII.
CONSEQUENTIALISM
“The term ‘consequentialism’ is closely related to two others: utilitarianism and proportionalism. An ethical theory is consequentialist if it says: Choose that action that will produce the best consequences (or least bad consequences) in the long run” (The Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, p 140). An example of this is when a couple chooses to abort a child because the child in the womb has been diagnosed with a severe handicap.
There are at least two errors in this position:
– It ignores the principle set by St Paul: never do evil to bring about a good (cf. Rom 3:8). Stated in another way, “the end does not justify the means.”
– “The question can be raised: the good that results from the act is good for whom? It could happen that the advocate of consequentialism may consider those consequences that are good for him, but not good for another person or for society. Thus, the advocates of this ethical system can use immoral means, or seek immediate personal gain…. The fact that it is also known as ethics of intention makes even clearer its fundamental flaw, since good intentions do not justify immoral acts. Besides, who can measure the intention of an individual?” (A Fernandez and J Socias, Our Moral Life in Christ)
PROPORTIONALISM
Proportionalists argue that the goodness or evil of an action should be determined by comparing the proportion of good and bad in alternatives for choice. Whatever seems to be a greater good or a lesser evil determines what one ought to do.
The problem that this poses is how one is to measure that proportion, since usually many goods are at stake, and different people weigh different things in different ways. The absence of an objective reference point makes moral decisions arbitrary.
(Image: geralt at Pixabay.com)
Follow
