The Different Systems of Morality

Aside from Christian morality, there are other systems of morality. We will not consider here systems of morality coming from other religions because these systems are better studied in History of Religions. Instead, we will consider those systems that fall under the concept of Moral Relativism.

Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that there are different moral truths for different people. It comes in two forms: ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism.

-Ethical subjectivism holds that morality is relative to individuals,

-Cultural relativism holds that it is relative to culture.

Both deny the existence of moral absolutes, of objective moral truths that hold for all people in all places at all times.

According to moral relativism, it makes no sense to ask the abstract question whether a given act is good or bad. There is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop.

If moral relativism is true, therefore, then we should not ask whether an act is good or bad in the abstract, but only whether it is good or bad in a particular situation.

Some see moral relativism as an obvious truth, as undeniable; others see it as a threatening the moral foundation on which society is founded.

Arguments for Moral Relativism

Those who support moral relativism cite various proofs of its truth:

There are those who point out that different individuals and cultures have different moral beliefs. Moral disagreement therefore demonstrates that morality is merely a product of personal opinion or culture. 

Some say that moral absolutism (the opposite of moral relativism) collapses in certain circumstances like when there are exceptions to every moral rule, occasions on which certain immoral practices like lying, stealing, and even worse acts are morally justified. Hence, morality must be relative to certain circumstances. 

Others that only moral relativism is consistent with the fact that we should be tolerant of those with whom we disagree, particularly those from different backgrounds to our own. We should not to think that we or our culture is morally better than any other. We therefore ought to be moral relativists.

Arguments Against Moral Relativism

Those who reject relativism, of course, have arguments of their own:

At times, it is right to judge that one culture is morally better than others. This kind of judgment is only possible when we use an objective standard for judging. 

It is alright to judge whether in a given society or culture, the moral standard has gone up or down. This judgment will not be possible in moral relativism. 

Kinds of Moral Relativism

1. Cafeteria morality-this is the kind of relativism where the individual chooses what he/she wants to practise, what rules to follow, what suits one’s lifestyle, attitude, etc. The moral plate of such an individual consists of his/her personal choices, preferences and conveniences and likes, as in a cafeteria.

This system of morality puts the individual in the place of the Creator because here, one creates one’s own moral system.

2. Consensus morality-this is the moral system that looks at what the majority does. Right or wrong depends on what most people do. It seems morality as democratic, subject to the approval of the majority. It advocates subjecting moral issues to  referendums, elections, etc.

3. Psychological rationalization- this moral system considers genetic and psychological make-up as determining a person’s moral choices and behaviours, undermining personal freedom in the process. It says that we are not really free because we cannot but act in a pre-determined way because of our psychology and genetics.

4. Situation ethics- what is right or wrong depends on the situation. Some immoral acts may be right in certain situations, wrong in other occasions. It denies intrinsically evil acts and the moral aspects of one’s intentions. The main source of morality is the situation in which the act is done.

5. Fundamental option- this refers to a moral theory according to which each person gradually develops a basic orientation of his or her life, either for or against God. This fundamental direction is said to be for God if one's life is devoted to the love and service of others, and against God if one's life is essentially devoted to self-love and self-service. 

The 1975 Vatican document Persona Humana stated that fundamental option affirms  “that mortal sin, which causes separation from God, only exists in the formal refusal directly opposed to God's call, or in that selfishness which completely and deliberately closes itself to the love of neighbour. Individual human acts cannot radically change this fundamental option. Particular acts are not enough to constitute a mortal sin." Implicit in this theory is the notion that there can be serious sins, such as murder and adultery, because these actions are gravely wrong. However, it suggests that no mortal sin is committed unless a person subjectively rejects God.