por The relative values are those that vary depending on the situation and variables of the person such as social class, nationality, age or personal experiences. Values are the ways of thinking, acting and in general the things in life that are given importance.
According to relativism, also called moral relativism, the moral values that guide the behavior of humans change taking into account the social, cultural, historical, religious, legal, and political circumstances, among others, that prevail in a country or community.
For example, the values that prevail in an upper class individual, socially, politically and economically privileged, will not necessarily be the same as those that prevail in an individual belonging to a minority social group, socially excluded and marginalized; The moral values of a Catholic are not the same as those of a Muslim. From this point of view, the values are, therefore, relative.
Many people debate the existence of relative values, stating that values are characterized by being universal, concrete and objective. To justify this position, they point out that values are «common and universal ideas» that may vary in insignificant aspects from one culture to another, but whose essence remains in the background.
In this regard, the sophists (from sophism, a philosophical current that began in Ancient Greece) defend the position of relativism in terms of values. In this sense, the sophists indicate that ethical and moral values are simple conventions that are established between human societies.
This means that what is beneficial for one society may not be for another; This is where the relativity of values arises.
Examples of relative values
Moral values are a set of beliefs and guidelines that guide the behavior of human beings and that allow them to differentiate between good and evil. However, deciding what is right and what is wrong depends on many factors: the specific situation that arises, the people involved, among others.
The differentiation between good and evil varies from country to country and from culture to culture, and depends on the set of ideas and beliefs that are instilled in an individual. In this sense, the concept of relative moral values arises.
Next, two situations are presented in which the relativity of moral values is evident.
Situation #1: Honesty
Let’s take as a base situation that a person is fleeing from another person and, coincidentally, we have seen where this person is fleeing to.
The individual who is looking for this person asks us if we know where he went. So what do we do: say where the person is or hide the information?
In the situation presented, we lack information that tells us how to proceed, so let’s add more details.
Suppose we live in the 20th century, year 1943, in Nazi Germany where Jews are persecuted because of their religion.
So, we see a Jew on the run who has been the victim of inhumane treatment during the last years of his life and who will end up in a concentration camp if he is caught; a member of the Gestapo who is following this Jew asks us if we know where he has fled to.
In this case, what do we do? Are we honest and point out where the Jew fled to or do we lie, allowing the Jew to escape a life of suffering?
Ethics tells us that we must be honest at all times. However, the most moral thing in this case would be to lie, since the behavior of the Gestapo and the Nazi regime in general is amoral.
Now, if the fleeing person is a thief who is being chased by the police, the most correct thing to do is to be honest and say where the thief went.
Generally speaking, honesty is a positive element. However, it is not correct to reduce any value to the “fixed rule” condition. In order to apply honesty correctly, it is necessary to study situations carefully.
With these two examples, it can be seen that, although the general situation is the same, the actors vary, which also causes moral behavior to vary. In this order of ideas, the relativity of moral values is evident.
Situation No. 2: Respect for life
In this example, let us consider that individual X caused the death of individual Y. Was his behavior moral or immoral?
The Christian religion points out that one of the commandments of God’s law is «you shall not kill»; then: can we say that X’s behavior is amoral? The answer is that it is relative and depends on the circumstances in which said act was carried out.
Let’s imagine that individual X was being attacked by individual Y; X’s life was in danger so he tried to defend himself and hit Y, who accidentally died.
In this case, X acted in self-defense while Y showed no respect for the lives of others by attacking X.
In this situation, we can say without a doubt that the assailant’s behavior was amoral. For his part, we cannot judge the victim, who was only trying to save his life.
Now, let’s consider that X is an assailant and Y is the victim. In this case, X’s behavior is totally amoral because, by murdering Y, he shows no respect for the lives of others.
Finally, let’s imagine that X and Y are two soldiers on the front lines.
Casualties during the war are not punishable by law as murder; in fact, many nations offer medals to their surviving soldiers for having demonstrated their bravery in defending the nation.
However, does the fact that it is legal to kill soldiers of the opposing army during an armed confrontation make these crimes moral?
The answer is no: the crimes committed during the war continue to be amoral. However, this is a more complex issue than the situations raised in the previous cases because it involves the interests of nations; and the nations justify these actions by dehumanizing the individuals of the opposing army and pointing out that the acts committed were carried out to protect the country from the foreign threat.
Situation #3: Tolerance
It is one of the great paradoxes that many intellectuals, thinkers or politicians ask themselves: Is it necessary to be tolerant with the intolerant?
This paradox was described by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper in 1945, just the year that World War II ended, a very significant context for what had just happened in Europe with the rise of the Nazis to power and the subsequent war.
Politics, freedom of expression, minorities or democracy are some of the concepts that are involved in this relative value.
Situation No. 4: Cooperation
This value is based on carrying out work together with another person or other groups of people in order to achieve an objective. The positive of this value is that the chances of achieving success increase, since unity is strength.
If, for example, in an agricultural cooperative a sector of the field has been destroyed by the rains and among all the farmers they put funds and their effort, it is most likely that the hardships will be minimized.
However, cooperation can also be used to do evil. For example, when mafias from different countries cooperate to divide up territory when selling illegal substances. Once again, there is strength in unity, with all parties benefiting, but at the cost of harming society.
References
Moral relativism. Retrieved on June 14, 2017, from en.wikipedia.org.
Are values such as morality relative instead of definite? Retrieved on June 14, 2017, from quora.com.
Moral relativism. Retrieved on June 14, 2017, from iep.utm.edu.
Moral relativism. Retrieved on June 14, 2017, from philosophybasics.com.
Moral relativism. Retrieved on June 14, 2017, from plato.standford.edu.
Moral relativism. Retrieved on June 14, 2017, from moral-relativism.com.
What is moral relativism. Retrieved on June 14, 2017, from gotquestions.org.