The theory states that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (ethics) is always relative. Every culture establishes basic values and principles. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of culture itself. In other words, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced.
The same action may be morally right in one society, but morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral norms, norms that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards by which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical issues between members of different societies.
Kohlberg's vision predominated over the past few decades, but recent theoretical developments in social and cultural psychology (Shweder et al. From that point of view, the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations and the products of natural selection. Thus, rudimentary moral intuitions, such as aversion to harm and reciprocity, date back to the beginning of human history. Morality evolved long before the rise of our species and fulfils the adaptive function of facilitating cooperation within groups and against enemies.
In fact, this evolutionary framework focuses on motivational orientations rooted in evolved unconscious emotional systems developed by experiences that predispose someone to react to an act or events in a particular way. It is suggested that the evolutionary adaptations of species seem to regulate behaviors and promote individual well-being. As such, an individual's moral principles are relative to the culture to which they belong. According to cultures, the notions of good and evil are defined differently and lead to different values and principles.
The same action could well be considered a serious moral transgression in some cultures and a simple social crime in others (Shweder et al. From this perspective, morality extends beyond intercultural differences. Every society has a moral system that depends on its beliefs, ideologies and views of the world (Jensen, 2011). The history of societies has demonstrated, for example, that some perceive divorce, induced abortion or, more recently, same-sex marriages as a direct violation of morality and, therefore, should be avoided at all costs.
Therefore, not everyone has the same idea of the areas to which morality can be applied (Skitka et al. Haidt (200) suggests the term “moral community” to characterize each group that shares the same values and moral norms; these groups also share the same ideas about how to enforce them. Core values establish a moral compass for business practice. They can help companies identify practices that are acceptable and those that are intolerable, even if the practices are compatible with the rules and laws of the host country.
Dumping pollutants close to people's homes and accepting inadequate regulations for handling hazardous materials are two examples of actions that violate fundamental values. The hypothesis, according to which the stages of development are invariable, was well supported when there was a precise adaptation of the content and when the language of the interview coincided with that of the subject. It is the denial of this possibility that gives moral relativism a more radical touch and is responsible for much of the criticism it attracts. This variability raises questions for the normative theories of morality from an intercultural perspective.
The first process consists of developing a structured representation of the situation, integrating its schedule, its causal chain, the intentions of its taxpayers, its moral properties and all the relevant implicit elements. The increase in skepticism toward moral objectivism is one of the most significant changes that have occurred in moral philosophy in the last two centuries. RARE societies are more likely to require abstract principles to justify moral judgment (see Kohlberg's post-conventional stage). The first, also shared by Kohlberg, is to say that individuals in Eastern societies have a lifestyle that prevents their moral development.
With respect to this moral concern, these Western societies then react quickly, automatically and using emotions. Kohlberg (197) developed his stage theory of moral development based on the work of Piaget (193) and conceptualized three levels of moral development, and each level contains two sub-stages. Some say that, while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles that underlie these practices do not. It is also considered that the rational discourse of morality does not have a significant impact on moral decision-making and the search for solutions.
For example, in recent years, Western societies (especially American ones) have become sensitive to the issue of sexual abuse of children, to such an extent that they are dismayed by social behaviors that are completely normal in other parts of the world. Everyone has areas of moral interest developed by evolution, in which some intuitions are more predominant than others. This type of moral discourse is part of the model of Eastern moral systems, which involves the ethics of the Community or the ethics of Divinity, rather than the ethics of Autonomy. These foundations establish the moral system based on the idea that all intuitions and feelings induce moral judgments and arguments.
Their particular cultural context seems to create conditions that favor the development of the capacity for moral reasoning and the motivation to participate in argumentation activities. .
