It is certainly true that customs to an extent do define what is moral in a society. There is, for example, no universal definition of proper dress; it varies from culture to culture. This is not to say, however, that all morality is no more than custom simply because some behavior meets that definition. Your position would not allow you to say that slavery per se was immoral, only that it is immoral in the US. Nor could you even say that murder is immoral as many societies today engage in honor killings where the brother or father of a girl who was raped will kill the girl for dishonoring the family. This presents you with an ethical dilemma: a Muslim girl in England is raped and then murdered by her father. Was his action immoral? According to English custom it was but according to Muslim custom it was not. Which prevails? More basically, it means that the same action can be both moral and immoral at the same time which really isn’t all that useful.
There is no such thing as an ideal custom; there are only different customs: English, Chinese, Aztec, cannibal, even prison customs and, according to your definition, all are morally equivalent. I really have a hard time believing that you actually think this way even though this is the conclusion your position forces you to take.
Ender
I think that ethics, by their very nature, must be subjective. Any ethical system begins from a question - “how must I live my life?” or “what ought I to do?”
The answers to these questions will be different for every person who asks them. Some may follow broadly similar ‘rules’ or structures, but even then, the actual reasons for following those rules will differ, subtly or perhaps widely.
I don’t believe there is anything like a universal moral law. Although I can appreciate the usefulness in certain situations of appealing to a higher authority for guidance in a moral choice, at the end of the day, the choice has to be made by each individual on his or her own, and they have to be able to live with their choice.
If ethics are related to values held by a society or a specific person, it is possible to judge the moral character of their actions against the values they profess to uphold, and decide whether or not we think they have acted morally in terms of what their values seem to demand.
But this is also subjective, and problematic, because people have different ways of addressing values. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we value sentient life. I’d say that’s a pretty widespread value, since most people are rather fond of their own lives, and the lives of friends, family, and perhaps pets as well, at the very least. From this value we can derive the ethic of allowing sentient life forms to continue - that is, not murdering them - and also that of sparing them unneccessary pain and suffering - that is, not causing them pain unless for some reason it is in their interest - like a trip to the dentist, for example, or the parent who smacks their toddler to stop him from pulling a hot saucepan off the stove.
However, whilst it makes a certain amount of logical sense to say that having values leads to making choices to act in ways that uphold those values, there are always going to be times when certain values or certain ethics derived from values will be in conflict. Certain people may value some things more than life - honour, for example - or there may be times when it is not clear which action would best serve a certain value.
Let’s take the above example of valuing sentient life. The issue of euthanasia here provides a useful illustration of why there will always be subjectivity inherent in ethical choices. Some would say that respect for life demands that no action be made directly to end the life of a terminal patient. However, respecting the sentience of that life - and the wishes of an autonomous agent - may make it a higher moral priority to end the suffering endured by the terminal patient. Of course, if the patient either withholds or is denied the opportunity to consent, then the point is moot, because here we have yet another value - autonomy of individual agents - that is brought to bear on the situation.
This is why I don’t believe there is a universal moral law. There is no ethical decision made by humans that is not affected to some extent by emotion, by subjectivity. We humans have evolved to have rich and varied emotional lives, and one might even say that it is wrong to deny emotional (name removed by moderator)ut into moral decisions - even if it were possible to disengage our emotions - because once again, emotion is something that has a direct bearing on the quality of human life.
As to what I think and believe, there are many things that I personally feel it is right and wrong to do, and this is in line with my personal values. I am, for example, outraged by what is referred to as honour killing, because it offends almost every value I hold. But it is I - and the many others who abhor the practice - who condemn it, not the universe. It is only by changing the values of those who practice it that we will ever get them to believe it is fundamentally wrong, and that approach carries its own set of ethical considerations… In any case, the conclusion you draw from my reasoning is only accurate to the extent that there exist multiple conceptions of “right” in the world, and although they may be incompatible, they can and do co-exist. But I would suggest that no single action can be held to be equally right and wrong within the mind of one person.
