Moral Relativism is the microcosm of Fletcher’s new morality. Modernity is deeply rapt with relativism such that the validity of truth depends on the subject (self). Moral decision making is at the heart of every free and rational being such as man. It therefore implies that morality is anchored on human nature. And since, human nature is universal, it therefore follows that morality is universal and objective. There are three determinants of morality; object, intention and circumstance. In order to determine the goodness or wrongness of any particular human act, these three elements must be considered. The object is that which is actually done. This implies that there are actions that are good or bad in themselves irrespective of the intention or circumstances involved. The intention is the end or purpose for which something is done. The circumstances are the individuating conditions, that although in themselves not part of the nature of the action, nonetheless modify in some way its moral quality. Hence, a human action is morally good only when all the three elements are substantially good and an action becomes bad if one of these elements becomes bad. However, the new morality of Joseph Fletcher elevates the last of these elements above the first two. For him, an action is made good or bad depending on the circumstances or situations. Hence, any act – even lying, premarital sex, abortion, murder etc. could be right depending on the circumstances. Thus, in this work, the researcher examined the need to always consider these three elements in making moral decisions. As such, it aims at proposing that moral decision making is not only dependent on the circumstances of an action since it leads to the relativity of morality. To achieve this, the researcher critically analyzed moral relativism as proposed by Fletcher in his new morality in a bid to weigh its pros and cons. This study then pinpoints some adverse implications of moral relativism when applied in the society. It concludes by affirming that morality is not relative but absolute, and ipso facto, what is good is good and what is wrong is wrong irrespective of the circumstances involved.I once read a very short write up that reads thus; “this generation believes the bad is the good, and the good is bad. I really pity the next generation because there is nothing to teach them. This generation turned nudity into body positivity and mind your business is now the other of the day when one is been corrected.” Personal opinions of celebrities prescribed at their whims and caprices are becoming generally and widely accepted maxims and ideas that rule the world. Today, to excel in modelling, one would have to reveal some sensitive parts of one’s body. Ladies now relish the fact that they are dressed in revealing attires. This age is totally replete with moral decadence which is on daily increase. The advertisement industry is in no way ameliorating the situation as those who wish to sell their products unceasingly advertise their products with ladies fairly or fully unclad.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is fitting at this point to affirm that Moral Relativism in the society could lead to the following:
Constant evolution of moral standards
Social cohesion and fragmentation among different groups
Individual autonomy and personal freedom in moral choices
Challenges in law and governance
Ethical dilemmas
Diverse moral standards
Ethical nihilism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.