‘Men are better than women’. ‘Whenever someone with a position of authority says something, it’s true’. ‘Power is dependant on cultural background’. Now, if you’re a decent human being by any stretch of the imagination, you’ll disagree with all of these! If not… well then, you’re either a raging misogynist, entirely gullible or downright racist.
Ethics is the philosophical study of morals. A concept taught to us at the age of about 2 but discussed by all of the world’s most influential philosophers. What is right and what’s wrong. Now, it would be unfathomable to suggest that I could unpack all of this within my 8-12 minutes but the one topic in particular that fascinates me is ‘Contextualism within Moral Philosophy’.
There are tens, if not hundreds, of factors that influence our individual perceptions on morals from the laws imposed by the state to our own personal experiences. To suggest that there are any universal ethics which should be followed by everyone at all costs would just be ignorant. Ignorant of traditions, social development, economic or educational backgrounds, and of society in and of itself! My personal view? There are three predominant factors which affect our moral decision making: education and knowledge, gained through temporal evolution; cultural background, dependant on where in the world you’re from; and personal experiences.
Here’s a question for you: why do you use a keyboard, iPad or a pen to make notes instead of using a typewriter, quill, or scratching it into clay tokens? It’s because technology and society have advanced since then! The same goes for ethics. Why should we use outdated methods of moral decision making when, as a civilisation, we have developed and now have the knowledge and understanding of the views of historical philosophers, theologians and ethicists? Take, for instance, my initial comment, the belief that 'men are better than women'. This absurd idea from a bygone era was rooted in ignorance and perpetuated by patriarchal societies, shown even in the Bible through the Ephesians quote “wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands […] as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing”.
Just as we've moved on from typewriters and quills, we need to embrace modern ethical standards that reflect our evolved understanding of justice and equality. By no means is this to say that what we believe to be ethical now is objectively right because in 100 years’ time, we might have developed new methods of moral decision making or the adapted the objective Kantian view (to never lie, never steal, never kill, etc.). For all we know, this might be the most widely accepted method by then, but what it does do is ensure that our morals reflect societal progression and we question the way our ancestors acted - criticising part, of course, but also adapting and appreciating their successful ideas. It contextualises moral philosophy.
To revisit the Kantian idea, when any of you make moral decisions, I can almost guarantee that context plays a massive role. Never lie? But what if it’s telling your insecure best friend of 15 years that she doesn’t look fat in that dress? Never steal? But what if it’s a homeless, single mother stealing food and sanitary products for her and her daughter? Never kill? What if you’re trying to convince a doctor to euthanise your grandad who suffers from motor neurone disease and has been in crippling pain for six months? Context is everything! And yet in the 18th century when Kant was alive, a far greater emphasis was put on rationality. At first glance, of course lying, stealing and killing are wrong, so Kant was justified to conclude that an ordered society could only exist if nobody was to lie, steal or kill. But this is not the 1800s.
Cultural background also plays a significant role in how we make ethical decisions. Our upbringing, traditions, and societal norms shape our ethical views. For example, consider the differing views on filial piety between Western and Eastern cultures. Filial piety is the almost-Confucian idea that one should respect, look up to and obey their elders. Now, from the perspective of my Eastern background, it's ingrained in me that filial piety is fundamental to successful familial relationships. It's not just about following rules; it's about honouring the knowledge and sacrifices that our parents, grandparents and ancestors had to make. In 1972, my grandparents came to the UK as refugees from Uganda and through just 2 generations, they, and my parents, managed to create for me a life of luxury! I don’t have to think about where my next meal is coming from. I sleep every night with a roof over my head and a full stomach. Of course this makes me respect my grandparents. It would be a sweeping generalisation to say that no Westerners have any respect for their parents (of course they do), but Western cultures often promote individualism and personal freedom. Does that make it right? Does it make it wrong? No. Just as we wouldn't expect everyone to celebrate the same holidays or eat the same foods, we can't expect a one-size-fits-all approach to morality.
And then there are personal experiences. ‘Lying is always wrong’. ‘Your first duty is to yourself, not your friends, family or employer’. ‘Buying from unethical brands is fine, one person won’t make a difference’. Now these three statements are neither intrinsically right nor wrong. Different people will have different perspectives and views on them, likely influenced by the people they associate themselves with, their age, experiences, upbringing, all of which come together to form one’s ‘moral compass’.
Let’s say there’s two people: Gabriel, a 17 year old boy who grew up in a war-torn country and has worked for half of his life in a sweatshop; and Nandini, a girl who, despite being the same age as Gabriel, grew up incredibly privileged in a in a peaceful neighbourhood in the UK having never in her life had to worry about where her next meal was coming from. One one hand, of course Gabriel would be entirely against unethical shops (no matter the little effect of one person on the market). Now, Nandini isn’t some hateful, immoral creature who doesn’t care at all about those in sweatshops, but she just thinks that her (an individual) can’t have a significant impact on a mass market comprised of unethical factories. Or - to put another spin on it - like mine, Nandini’s parents could have come to England as refugees in 1972 and the only job that they could find was in a sweat shop, making fabrics. Yes, they’re often unsafe places to work but if it’s bringing people out of unemployment and giving them some money, is it justified?
Let’s take another example: someone, like myself, who has experienced discrimination or racism first-hand might have a keener sense of justice and empathy towards others facing similar struggles, and yet those who haven’t faced such discrimination might struggle to fully grasp the urgency of these issues, or further still it may never cross their minds! To overlook the impact of personal experiences on our ethical views would, again, be ignorant.
To wrap this all up, ethics and moral philosophy are complex - of course they are! It’s not just a factors that you can stick in a calculator and expect a result (contrary to utilitarian Jeremy Bentham’s ‘hedonic calculus’). It’s influenced by so, so many factors, including my ‘top-3’: education, cultural background, and personal experiences. It's impossible to suggest a universal set of ethics for everyone because our understanding of right and wrong evolves with society. Kant’s rigid moral principles might have been fitting in the 18th century, but today, context is key. Cultural backgrounds, like the differing views on filial piety between Eastern and Western societies, shape our ethical views profoundly. Personal experiences further influence our moral compass, demonstrating the diversity of human experiences. Ignoring these factors would be ignorant. Ethics needs context.
Comments