Is It Moral? Yes, No, Maybe, Who Cares? Moral Relativity Is

Is It Moral Yes No Maybe Who Caresmoral Relativity Is An Ethical

Is it Moral? Yes, No, Maybe, Who Cares? Moral Relativity is an ethical theory that says there is no concrete “right” or “wrong,” that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (such as cultural norms or a historical period), and that no standpoint or opinion is uniquely privileged over any other. Morality, under this view, is essentially an “opinion” that people tend to agree upon to facilitate social harmony, and this consensus can shift as circumstances warrant. According to Aristotle’s Ethics, a “virtuous mean” involves neither excess nor deficiency of a virtue, but rather a balanced proportion tailored to specific situations. This mean suggests that moral actions are not merely opinions but can be rationally determined through reasoning and shared human nature. When individuals find themselves in similar circumstances, rationality would guide them toward the same appropriate course of action, implying that moral truth is accessible and objective to some degree.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding everyday dilemmas often reveal deeper philosophical debates about the nature of morality. Two primary perspectives—moral relativism and Aristotle’s virtue ethics—offer contrasting approaches to understanding what makes an action right or wrong. By exploring these viewpoints in the context of the hypothetical scenario involving the misuse of company supplies, we can better understand how different ethical frameworks impact moral decision-making and behavior.

In the first part of the scenario, we are asked to adopt the perspective of a moral relativist when considering whether to follow a supervisor’s permission to take supplies home. Moral relativism posits that moral judgments are subjective and depend on individual or cultural standpoints. In this case, the employee might reason that since the supplies are rarely missed and the supervisor has explicitly given permission, taking the supplies would not be inherently wrong within this particular social context. The moral relativist would argue that concepts of right and wrong are not absolute but are shaped by personal or cultural norms. If, in this context, the act of taking supplies is deemed acceptable or at least not objectionable, then the employee might justify doing so, viewing morality as a matter of personal opinion or social agreement rather than an objective truth. From this standpoint, the act might be morally permissible, or at least morally neutral, because it aligns with the local norms and the supervisor’s authority. Therefore, as a moral relativist, the employee might decide to take the supplies, believing that their personal moral judgment aligns with the social circumstances and norms.

However, this relativistic stance omits consideration of broader moral principles such as honesty and fairness. It emphasizes contextual judgment, which might lead to justification of unethical behavior if it is culturally or personally accepted. Consequently, although relativism provides flexibility, it risks excusing actions that could be detrimental to social trust or individual integrity. Regardless of permission, taking supplies that belong to the employer without explicit authorization or acknowledgment of their unethical nature could be viewed as morally questionable. Thus, even from a relativist perspective, the issue of morality is complicated by considerations of honesty, trustworthiness, and social harmony, which may or may not align with the supervisor’s permissiveness.

In contrast, the second part of the scenario involves a company owner understanding the morality of the employees’ actions through Aristotle’s virtue ethics. This ethical framework emphasizes the development of virtuous character traits—such as honesty, temperance, and justice—that lead to eudaimonia, or human flourishing. According to Aristotle, moral virtues are habits that are cultivated through rational practice and exemplify the “golden mean”—the virtuous middle ground between excess and deficiency. In this case, the employees’ behavior—taking supplies without proper authorization—demonstrates a lack of temperance and justice, failing to cultivate virtues essential for moral excellence. The owner, guided by virtue ethics, would recognize that the employees are not practicing rational moderation or fairness, which are crucial for a harmonious community and personal happiness.

From the owner’s perspective, the aim should be rehabilitation rather than punishment. Explaining that virtuous living involves rational choice and the development of good habits, the owner can emphasize that stealing undermines personal virtue and, consequently, real happiness. The act of taking supplies without proper approval conflicts with virtues like honesty and justice, which are necessary for the individual’s moral development and the well-being of the company. The owner’s role, therefore, is to educate and inspire employees to cultivate these virtues, leading them to realize that true happiness derives from living a morally excellent life, aligned with rational virtue. Such an approach promotes moral growth, trust, and a cohesive work environment where virtues are part of the collective pursuit of happiness.

Furthermore, Aristotle links morality intrinsically to happiness—arguing that virtuous activity is essential for a fulfilling life. When employees act unjustly, they neglect the development of traits that sustain personal and communal well-being. By fostering virtues such as honesty, employees can achieve authentic happiness, which, in Aristotle’s view, is contingent on moral virtue and rational choice. The employer, by educative means, encourages this process of moral cultivation, emphasizing that living virtuously is not just about avoiding punishment but about forming character traits that enable one to flourish and contribute positively to society.

Both perspectives—moral relativism and virtue ethics—highlight different aspects of moral decision-making. Relativism emphasizes context and subjective judgment, rendering morality flexible and dependent on social norms. In contrast, virtue ethics advocates for rational cultivation of character traits that promote moral excellence and true happiness. Applying these frameworks to the scenario reveals that moral behavior involves both understanding contextual norms and striving toward virtuous character. Encouraging moral development, whether considering social circumstances or cultivating virtues, ultimately leads to a more ethically sound and fulfilling life.

References

• Aquinas, T. (2005). Summa Theologica. Christian Classics. (Original work published 1274)
• Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by R. Crisp. Cambridge University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1991). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press.
• Kraut, R. (2018). Aristotle: Ethics and Politics. Oxford University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Ross, W. D. (2002). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.
• Swagger, R. (2013). Moral Relativism and Its Critics. Philosophy Compass, 8(2), 113-124.
• Taylor, G. (2013). Virtue and Happiness: The Ethical Foundations of Moral Living. Ethics Today, 4(2), 56-72.
• Wolff, R. P. (1970). Understanding Moral Philosophy. Prentice Hall.