Thesis Statement: If morality is in fact intended to satisfy the purposes outlined by Pojman in his thesis, then ethical relativism is not a plausible theory for morality.

            Ethical relativism is incompatible with Louis Pojman’s thesis of the purposes of morality. According to Pojman, morality is meant to “guide our actions in ways that light up our paths and prevent and reduce suffering, that enhance human (and animal, for that matter) well-being, that allow us to resolve our conflicts of interests according to recognizably fair rules, and to assign responsibility for actions” (40). Every moral code will vary to the degree which it fulfills each of the five purposes but, in Pojman’s view, a complete moral code will ultimately work toward fulfilling all of them and will not work against any of them (40). Ethical relativism, according to the relativity claim, argues that the moral code of a culture determines what is right within that culture; the mere fact that a culture believes something is morally right makes it morally right. For Pojman, morality is necessary to keep society from falling apart (39), but ethical relativism not only allows moral principles that are detrimental to a healthy society, it also declares that these same principles are indeed morally right for their respective cultures, leaving no room for reform. Therefore, ethical relativism is contrary to morality’s purposes.

            In his essay, Pojman suggests that his proposed purposes of morality are the basis of every moral theory and are necessary for a successful society (39-40). Without morality, “we would not flourish or reach our higher potential” and “society would break down” (Pojman 40). Moral principles must be in line with at least one of morality’s purposes to be viewed as beneficial for society. A dichotomy can be drawn here: either an act complies with the purposes of morality or it doesn’t. Actions, and cultural practices, can then be deemed as either morally permissible or morally impermissible, according to this standard. If I torture my younger sister whenever I feel like it and cause her undue pain, I am not working towards lessening human suffering and my actions are morally unacceptable.

So, a moral principle either fulfills a purpose of morality and is right, or it conflicts with one or more purposes and is wrong. As moral principles can be weighed in this way, so can the moral theories that they comprise be judged; a moral code must “promote greater freedom and well-being” (Pojman 39) or it is insufficient. If a moral code not only fails to fulfill the purposes of morality, but also obstructs the functionality of morality, then it is morally wrong. However, by the relativity claim, a culture’s moral code is always right, despite its ability or inability to satisfy morality’s purposes. The possibility of a moral code being wrong is contradictory to the claim of ethical relativists that the moral code of a culture determines itself what is right for that culture. And, conversely, ethical relativism does not require a moral code to perform a function in society in order for it to be right for an individual culture and Pojman’s purposes do not allow for this.

If we lived in a culture that believed that it is right to not allow females to pursue a higher education, an ethical relativist would say it is morally right for our universities to only offer admission to males. However, this practice is in direct conflict with the purpose of “[promoting] human flourishing” (Pojman 39) as women are part of the human race and they should be provided with an equal opportunity to gain intellectually from a university education. Barring students from attending university because of their gender is morally wrong because it contravenes morality’s purposes and is, thus, not right. This is in contrast with the claim by ethical relativism that this practice is right for our culture because of our culture’s belief that it is right.

Even if a portion of the citizens in our society recognized the practice of admitting students to university according to gender as being incompatible with morality’s purposes, reform is not possible. Since our culture believes that this view is valid, it IS valid. Why alter the university admissions selection process if it is right? Ethical relativism says that there is no need to change a culture’s beliefs as they must be right for that culture. Under the theory of relativism, there is no opportunity to modify practices that are inconsistent with the purposes of morality and nocuous for a society and its members. Even when a moral principle obviously goes against a purpose of morality, there is no avenue for reform because ethical relativism states that the moral beliefs of a culture are right and, therefore, never need to be changed. A moral code that presently fails to meet the purposes of morality will continue to fail; improvements to a moral code in order to stimulate further human flourishing cannot be made. Again, ethical relativism stands in the way of achieving a goal of morality.

If Pojman’s theory of the purposes of morality is correct, then it is possible to distinguish between the actions, cultural practices, and moral principles that satisfy these purposes and those that do not. Those that meet these standards will be favourable to society and are right; those that do not are wrong and should be changed. If all moral theories can be found to be either right or wrong in terms of morality’s purposes, then a moral code can be wrong and ethical relativism cannot exist.

Works Cited

Pojman, Louis P. The Moral Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.