by Kevin J. Browne

Created on: June 20, 2009   Last Updated: July 16, 2009

Many students are fond of the insight that everyone has different morals. But, is this really true? What is the evidence for this claim? Could it possibly be true? Let's look at it.

While it's not clear who the "everyone" is in this claim let's examine it in two ways. First, let's look to our own culture in the United States. With roughly 300 million people could everyone have different morals? It seems impossible that there could be 300 million different moral codes! Even more so when we look at the world at large. Could there really be over 6 billion moral codes? This semester we have examined roughly a dozen ethical theories including subjectivism, relativism, emotivism, egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, feminism, and social contract theory. The vast majority of ethical codes are simply variations on these theories. Could we really have overlooked so many more? It seems unlikely!

Perhaps the belief in this claim that everyone has different morals is the fact that people disagree about moral issues. But, we need to look at this disagreement closer to see if it is really a disagreement about moral principles or the facts concerning the issue. A good example can be seen in the abortion debate. This is an especially good example in that I am sure it is one that people think of as validating this claim that everyone has different morals. After all what could be more different than the position of pro-life versus pro-choice.

But, how much do they really disagree with each other about fundamental moral principles? The pro-life advocate may say that innocent human lives should not be taken. Innocent children should not be murdered. Would a pro-choice person disagree with this? I doubt it. The question is not whether we should kill innocent children or not (that would represent a major difference in moral principles) but instead whether the fetus constitutes such an innocent child. Like it or not, this is a question of certain facts or definitions, not moral principles.

On the other hand, a pro-choice advocate may claim that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body and ought not to be told what to do with her own body. Would a pro-choice advocate disagree with this? Again, I doubt it. While this would represent another example of a difference in moral principles, the pro-choice advocate is not saying that woman should be stripped of their autonomy with regard to their own body. No, they are making

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>