Descriptive Ethical Relativism and Other Lamentations of Philosophy

By Christina Coburn 

My journey with philosophy has been a rocky one, to say the least. It’s been one that’s been marked by my impatience for riddles, paradoxes, and the verbose (looking at you, St. Anselm), my frustration with the bourgeoisie (Plato and The Symposium), and what I discovered to be an almost unwavering feeling of human existence being a cosmic accident (taking an astronomy class at the same time as your first philosophy class might do this). Throughout the coursework, I couldn’t help but wonder what the world would look like today if the philosophers we read had devoted as much time and energy into solving the issues of their time as opposed to pontificating about the essence of love or other intangibles.

This was, of course, until arriving at the lesson on modern ethics. Not to be that guy, but I just don’t care about what my ultimate purpose may or may not be in this lifetime. The people who raised me grew up in strictly Catholic households that were marked by substance abuse and mental illness, so my relationship with church never made it past baptism. That being said, if someone had the answer on how to live an ethical and fulfilling life, I’d love to hear it. Consequentialism is funny to me; natural law leaves me with more questions than answers, as does Kant’s categorical imperative. Divine command infuriates me; if you are trying to live your life in the most morally sound way, just so you can get into heaven, are you really behaving ethically? Jeremy Bentham intrigues me; I, too, am a person who wishes her life to be full of joy and pleasure, and I want the same for others. 

This leads me to the crux of my quandary with philosophy and the people engaged with it: why does a subject so keen on defining the gray areas of our world insist upon such rigid definitions of beliefs? The concept of ethical relativism first caught my eye when reading about modern ethics, but I was taken aback by the implications: how does an understanding of morality being subjective bring us to condoning crimes against humanity? Descriptive ethics also stuck out to me, but again, the conclusion that the documentation of personal beliefs will bring you to a dilemma regarding what is right or wrong also bothers me. I believe our experiences define our beliefs, and that when confronted with opinions that differ from our own, we should acknowledge them with a degree of sympathy. I think too often in our society, when we encounter someone else with opinions other than our own, we fail to consider the experiences (or lack thereof) that brought that individual to their set of beliefs, just as we forget to include our own experiences and how they’ve guided us. 

Thus, I present the term “descriptive ethical relativist,” which is founded on the idea that what is right or wrong is mostly unknowable since morality is subjective—but the journey to understand an individual’s personal moral compass through a social, historical, and cultural lens is much more valuable than simply evaluating their beliefs. I believe this model also serves a beneficial purpose in society; when we have the capacity to meet others where they are at and gain an understanding of the experiences that brought them to their beliefs, then we can forge stronger connections with one another and potentially break down systems of oppression. Those who learn history are the least apt to repeat it, and if we can engage with history as well as current events with the intent to understand the events that brought us to a given moment, then we can better understand how to either prevent it from happening again, or how to deal with it as it is unfolding. 

My ideas aren’t without disclaimers: I don’t believe it is the responsibility of oppressed people to explain their oppression, or that when face-to-face with those who exercise and uphold oppressive systems, that sympathy or understanding should be exercised. It is a privilege to be able to confront the “-ists"; “-ics”; and “-obes” without fear of retaliation, but it is a responsibility of those of us who benefit from these systems to do so. 

If Nietzsche and his demon are right, and we are condemned to live this life over infinite times for all eternity, then why not face our fellow humans with understanding and compassion? Why not advocate for each other and seek to make the world a better place? 

Christina Coburn is a sophomore at CT State Tunxis.

"Grafitti Phi Library": AI art remixed by J.I. Abbot using a licensed Wix stock photo and Photoleap software.