Moral Pluralism

By
Prof.Vibha Chaturvedi(Retired)
Professor & Former Head
Department of Philosophy
University of Delhi
chaturvedivibha@yahoo.com
Content Source

Chapter 25 –Moral Pluralismby Vibha Chaturvedi

From the book Understanding Ethicsby Vibha Chaturvedi and Pragati Sahni
Published by Motilal BanarsidassPublishing House
Emal: mlbd@mlbd.in Web: www.mlbd.in
What is Moral Pluralism?

u It is an undeniable fact in the contemporary world that societies’ and

people’s perceptions about moral values differ.
u Moral Pluralism is an acknowledgement of this diversity and the fact that
different moral values or systems are sometimes in conflict with each other
and no one of these can be said to be the only true or correct one or clearly
superior to all others.
u Sometimes it is further argued that different moral systems or sets of moral
values are incompatible and incommensurable with each other.
u Moral Pluralism is closely related to religious and cultural diversity.
Examples of Moral Pluralism

Norms relating to
u Sexual purity
u Parental authority
u Non-violence
u Individual freedom
u Marital fidelity
u Position of women
u Monogamy
The impact of Moral Pluralism

People’s Outlook
conduct to life

Life Projects
Ethical Relativism

u It maintains that no particular system can be said to be the only correct one
since each system derives its validity from the culture or society to which it
belongs; none, therefore, has universal or unconditioned validity.
u Relativism is often taken to imply that all different systems are equally valid
and beyond any external evaluation.
Legacy of Ethical Theories

u Ethical philosophers have generally not been very receptive to Moral Pluralism
or Relativism.
u They have tended to emphasize universal values.
u They have also argued that all moral values can be ranked on the basis of a
fundamental or principal overriding value.
u Most religious traditions also regard their moral values as universal, valid for
all human beings.
Search for Universal Values

u Many philosophers, social scientists and others have suggested that there are
universally accepted values.
u Samuel P. Huntington, famous for his phrase ‘clash of civilizations’, states that
“human beings in virtually all societies share certain basic values, such as murder
is evil, and certain basic institutions, such as some form of the family.”
u He adds that most people in most societies have a “thin minimal morality of basic
concepts of what is right and wrong.”
u However, he also mentions that some basic values of Asian societies and Western
societies are different.
u Kellenberger observes “That there are basic or primary values shared by human
beings by virtue of their common humanity or elements of a shared human nature
is an understandable and widespread notion. A variant of this idea is that primary
values are determined by the basic needs of human beings, either as individuals or
in societies.”
Challenging the thesis of Universal
Values
u Researches by sociologists and anthropologists challenge the thesis of
universal values.
u Their findings about cultural diversity have shown that moral evaluation of a
generically similar institution or action may vary across societies and cultures.
u This gives rise to skepticism about ethical absolutes, principles which are
fixed, invariable and the same for all human beings.
u It may be argued that moral values and principles are relative to cultures or
societies in the sense that that these are causally determined by and vary
with cultures or societies and their validity is relative to the culture or society
to which these belong.
Carl Wellman’s list which is understood to be
relative to culture by anthropologists.

u mores,
u social institutions,
u human nature,
u acts,
u goals,
u value experience,
u moral emotions,
u moral concepts,
u moral judgments
u moral reasoning.
Examples showing moral diversity

u Eskimos view the requirements of sexual fidelity within marriage or killing of

old parents differently from most of the Asian and Western societies.
u South Seas society looks at infanticide in a different way from many other
societies. Moral perceptions about polygamy, monogamy and polyandry and
widow remarriage also differ across cultures.
u Societies have different moral evaluations of slavery, untouchability, equality
of human beings, status of women, violence and other things.
u It has also been pointed out that the conception of the ultimate end of life
also varies across societies.
Values shared by cultures

u truth,
u justice,
u prohibition on unjustified killing etc
Implications of cultural diversity

u Wellman lists the genuine implications of cultural diversity:

(a) Our own institutions are far from inevitable.
(b) Generically similar objects or situations have different values in different
societies.
(c) Generically similar acts may be right in one society and wrong in another.
(d) Any comparison between the ethical views of the members of different
societies can be only partial.14
Defining Moral Pluralism

Multiplicity
Multiplicity
of moral
of values
traditions

Multiplicity of
moral theories
The formulation of moral pluralism

u J.B. Callicott in his critique of Moral Pluralism takes it to refer to the view
that in morality and moral decision making, an agent can appeal to different
ethical theories in different contexts.
u Elizabeth Wolgast and some others define Moral Pluralism as the view, which
admits of plurality of moral perspectives or outlooks rather than a plurality of
conflicting moral goods.
u Donald Crossby offers a composite view of Moral Pluralism, which recognizes a
plurality of moral theories, moral perspectives and a plurality of
irreconcilably conflicting goods.
u John Kekes offers an interesting and detailed account of Moral Pluralism,
which combines recognition of diversity of values with universal values.
Keke’s Formulation

u There is a distinction between primary and secondary values. Both moral and
non- moral values can be classified into these two categories.
u Primary values have their basis in human nature, and are, therefore,
universal.
u The secondary values, however, have their basis in our social roles and
individual aspirations and hence vary.
u Kekes’ formulation of Moral Pluralism offers an interesting option. It allows
for differences in conceptions of a good life, both within and across traditions
or cultures and yet retains a core of universal values in the form of primary
values.
Challenges

u Every moral system admits of several values. A moral agent can be and is
faced with a genuine conflict among two or more values such that he/she can
only satisfy one but not both of those values at the same time.
u An admission of plurality of moral systems or traditions gives rise to a
question about their validity.
u Are all of these equally valid even though these may be in part incompatible?
u Does each have validity relative to the culture, society or religion to which it
belongs?
u Does it follow that each person has a moral obligation to follow the morality of the
society or tradition to which she belongs?
u If so, is there a scope for evaluation of a tradition from within and reform?
Examples of intolerable elements within
systems
u racism and apartheid,
u slavery,
u caste hierarchy and untouchability,
u infanticide,
u subjugation of women,
u inhuman treatment of some sections of society,
Challenges contd..

u Contemporary conceptions of human rights also endorse common rights,

which belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity.
u These may be said to enshrine universal values derived from considerations of
equality and dignity of human persons.
u However, disagreements about human rights also exist and attempts to
combine universal rights with due recognition of cultural and other kinds of
diversity are deeply problematic.
Some questions to be answered

u A very important question in this context is whether all conceptions of a good

life are at par morally?
u Is the ideal of an ascetic life as good as one of a life of worldly pleasures?
u Is a conception aimed at satisfaction of one’s needs and self- promotion as
good as one based on the values of affection, respect for others and co-
operation?
u Most of us will be inclined to regard certain conceptions of a good life as
morally superior to certain others. What would be the criterion to judge this?