Is Morality Relative?
This is one of those philosophical questions that will probably always exist. Undoubtedly, there are many possible answers, but perhaps it is best to start with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy.
Kant’s stance on this question was clear. In a world of relativity, only one thing can be considered an unconditional good: goodwill. Talent, intelligence, resourcefulness, courage – none of these can be considered good in an absolute sense unless they are guided by goodwill.
Will is always tied to conscious choice; in this sense, if morality derives from goodwill, it cannot be something automatic or routine. Our act of will is the result of our decision that it is good, our free choice.
If morality depends on our reason and decision-making about the best course of action, why is it not more widespread? Because, according to Kant, human nature is “noble enough to impose duty as a principle, but weak when it comes to following it.”
However, there is a way to improve this situation. My. It is obvious that goodwill needs to be strengthened, and according to Kant, this can be achieved by following the path of duty in one’s own life. He defines duty as “the necessity of action that arises from respect for the law.” However, by law, he does not mean human laws, but the natural moral law that lives within us and arises from reason. This is a specific characteristic of human beings. Man is essentially a moral being.
Now we come to what Kant considered his great discovery, something that would, as he hoped, trigger a revolution in philosophy and ethics similar to the one that occurred in astronomy when Copernicus (re)discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Kant called this the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a command that arises from reason to do or not do something; it is characterized by being unconditional, not taking into account any benefit or harm to ourselves.
This moral imperative has two formulations. The first is probably the most well-known: “I must always act in such a way that the principle of my action could become a universal law.” “I fear that I am leading can become a universal law.” Put simply, “What would happen if everyone did what I intend to do?” Can we make the principle of our actions a universal law?
We can understand the second formulation of the categorical imperative as a fundamental principle of the doctrine of human rights: “Act in such a way that you never treat the humane, whether within yourself or within others, merely as a means, but always as an end in itself.”
It seems that the reason the world is still plagued by problems created by humans is not due to a lack of brilliant ideas. Why hasn’t humanity collectively adopted Kant’s propositions and rushed to implement them in practice?
Kant stated that with increasing internal freedom, the need for external constraints (by governments, police…) would gradually diminish. How true that is! This internal freedom is the freely made decision to live in accordance with the moral law. However, as many other philosophers have said, from Buddha to Seneca, there is a lot… It is easier to conquer a thousand enemies than oneself. Similarly, it is much easier to erect altars to “consumer choice” or “freedom of information” and quietly forget the importance of moral choice – the choice and freedom that truly befit a human being.
If we want to overcome moral relativism, we can do so by cultivating the goodwill that Kant formulates as follows: “I can, because I want what is my duty.” In other words, the greatest freedom is to act in accordance with the natural moral law within us.