Moral Pluralism: What You Need to Know about this Contemporary Ethics

© by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com

Also known as ethical pluralism and value pluralism, moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect. It thus implies that there are some values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other.

Moral pluralism proposes that in many cases, such incompatible values may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance.

Moral pluralism is a meta-ethical theory, rather than a theory of normative ethics or a set of values in itself. Russian-British social and political theorist, philosopher, and historian of idea Isaiah Berlin (1909- 1997) is credited with being the first to popularize a considerable work describing the theory of objective value-pluralism, taking it to the attention of the academe. However, the pertinent idea that basic values can and, in some cases, do conflict with each other has already been prominent in  the thought of the German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber (1864- 1920).

Moral pluralism seems to advocate flexibility when faced with competing perspectives. It evaluates issues from various moral standpoints in deciding and taking action. An example of value-pluralism is the notion that the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no strictly rational measure of which is preferable. It thus concludes that ethical decisions frequently necessitate radical preferences with no rational calculus to decide which alternative is to be chosen.

Moral pluralism holds that many moral issues are extremely complicated. It thus proposes that no single philosophical approach will always provide all the answers. For instance:

“… assume a building is on fire. A woman has the opportunity to rush inside and save the children trapped in the burning building. But in doing this she may die, and leave her own child an orphan. A moral pluralist would conclude that there is no definitive way to decide which is the better course of moral action. Indeed, moral pluralism declares that it is sometimes difficult to choose between competing values.” (“Moral Pluralism,” n.d.)

Moral pluralists occupy a middle ground between “there is only one right answer” as moral absolutists say, and “there is no wrong answer” as moral relativists claim. Value-pluralism differs from value-relativism in the sense that pluralism admits limits to differences, such as when crucial human needs are transgressed.

Pluralists point out that choices are complex, and so claim that we must not shy away from the proposition that values are plural. In short, the charm of pluralism is that it appears to allow for the complexity and conflict that is part of our moral experience. “We do not experience our moral choices as simple additive puzzles. Pluralists have argued that there are incommensurabilities and discontinuities in value comparisons, value remainders (or residues) when choices are made, and complexities in appropriate responses to value” (“Moral Pluralism,” n.d.).

Moral Pluralism: An Analysis

Although moral pluralism, at first glance, seems  to be flawless and attractive, it is definitely not immune to valid criticisms when philosophically analyzed. For one thing, moral pluralism fails to stipulate what to do when two or more of its values or theories indicate inconsistent practical imperatives.

Basically, not only is moral pluralism ethically irresponsible, it is also morally impotent. It gives us no moral standard, and offers us no moral power. Moral pluralism leaves us either concluding that (a) there is no real solution  to ethical dilemmas or (b) all possible answers are acceptable as long as they have underlying fundamental values. The second implied conclusion is very much like moral relativism.

Some also argue that moral pluralists ignore the fact that values are indeed commensurable as they can be compared by their varying contributions towards the human good. Concerning the ends of freedom, equality, efficiency, creativity, and the like, for instance, some claim that none of these are ends  in themselves, but are valued for their consequences. So technically, moral pluralists fail to prove that the problem of conflicting values is in principle insoluble.

In principle, moral pluralism is untenable. To propose that it does not matter which values we adhere to is, in effect, to claim that it does not matter what behavior we adopt. The two are intrinsically linked. Some thus explain that the popularity of pluralism (and relativism) in the globalized age is accompanied by substantial moral collapse today. Pluralism in belief and pluralism in morals go together. The outcome is said to be disastrous. As AE McGrath of Wheaton College explains:

“Think of the unwanted girl children left exposed to die on the hillsides of Ancient Greece. Think of the human sacrifices to the fish deity in ancient Polynesian religion. Think of the murder and gang rape carried out by practitioners of Satanism. Are we to believe that these all spring from differing insights into the same ultimate reality, as the pluralists claim? …Think, for example, of the Sawi tribespeople in Indonesia, savage cannibals and ruthless killers, for whom treachery was the highest virtue.’

“[Moral pluralism] can never control or even rival our natural sloth and greed… The terrorist groups [have] morality [which] is determined by their political goals. If you believe in your cause as the most important thing on earth, you will bomb, maim, and kill in order to achieve that goal. And the casualties? These are regrettable but inevitable. Many ancient religions included the idea of human sacrifice: if these still existed, would this practice be tolerated? Certainly not. (McGrath, n.d.)

Thus, we can identify negative social consequences of moral pluralism. Superficially, it has a certain plausibility to a liberal-minded public; yet, on closer scrutiny, it has its darker side. (© 2013-present by Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com)

Also read: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories, also by author Jensen DG. Mañebog

Also Check Out: The Worldview of Atheism by Jensen DG. Mañebog