Brown 1

Andrew Brown
Mr. O'Neill
Theory of Knowledge
10 February 2014
How do we know what is right?
The question of moral relativism versus moral absolutism is a very relevant one in today's
world. Absolutists contend that certain actions are categorically right and wrong, and that the
same moral standards apply to everyone, no matter what culture or beliefs one has. On the other
hand, the moral relativist believes that a holistic moral theory does not exist, and that the
different moral viewpoints of distinct cultures can be correct. Ethics is a branch of philosophy
that deals with the rightness or wrongness of actions, and is at the forefront of the absolutist
versus relativist debate. While some actions are clearly wrong, others undoubtedly fall into a
moral grey area; the difficult part is finding a balance between relativist and absolutist
philosophies that reflects our knowledge and lack thereof.
Attempting to find a single principle that would bind these concepts together presents an
impossible challenge. It is deceptively difficult to categorize certain actions as right or wrong.
For example, at first glance, killing an innocent person is undoubtedly a bad thing to do, and is
therefore categorically wrong under all circumstances. However, in many cultures, killing
another human is justifiable and morally permissible; in the United States, killing in self-defense
is a permissible action, and soldiers overseas are applauded for killing those who present a threat
(real or perceived) to the state. Likewise, the concept of innocence is a difficult one to address,
because one's innocence or guilt is based upon their actions, which require being judged under
the ethical system or principle. Yet another objection to the categorical wrongness of killing
Brown 2
someone would be under the theory of utilitarianism, which contends that the consequences of an
action are all that matter; if killing the healthy innocent were to save five others in need of
different organ transplants, it would be entirely justified.
One central tenant to the moral relativist's philosophy is that individuals cannot possibly
know everything, and therefore ought not to impose a single moral theory on others who they do
not know or understand. As a citizen of the United States who has lived in Claremont for my
entire life, I cannot possibly understand the culture of the Middle East, where female
circumcision is common. I view the practice with disgust, wondering how people could be that
barbaric. But from what I have heard, the practice is so common in certain areas of the Middle
East that both men and women there view it as natural and morally permissible, if not morally
obligatory. What makes me more right? The relativist would argue that I am no more right than
them, for I do not understand their conditions, their reasoning, and their circumstances. Just as I
view female circumcision with derision, some of them are disgusted by the way people in the
Western world dress and behave themselves. Are they correct? I would like to think not, yet they
believe just as much as I do that they are correct in their moral judgments.
Therefore, the closest thing that humanity can come to a holistic moral theory is that of
freedom. To get to this point, consider individual human beings in relation to one another. No
one person knows everything, and through interaction that is made quite apparent. We, therefore,
are equal in our ignorance. We are born with no knowledge except primal instincts, and then
branch out from there in a path that defines us as who we are. Our perspectives are shaped by the
path we take; in fact, the existence of difference perspectives is empirical proof of the
individual's lack of knowledge. If one were to possess knowledge of everything through
experiencing all that everyone had ever experienced, then they would be qualified to make a
Brown 3
holistic moral theory for evaluating the rightness of actions and behavior (though I highly doubt
that they could). But since no one is omniscient, there can be no completely correct
categorization of right and wrong. This is where the concept of freedom comes in: since no
values can be objectively judged as correct or incorrect, and since humans are equal in their
ignorance, no one should try to impose their own values upon others, and should instead allow
everyone else to carry out their lives however they choose. There is a limit to this freedom,
however. One should not take actions which harm the freedom of another; doing so would
presume that their own freedom means more than the freedom of the other person, violating the
basic tenant of equality. Likewise, the concept of rights forfeiture is applicable; if a person were
to enter another's house without permission, draw a gun, and point it at the owner, then they
would have forfeited their right to life by threatening the life and freedom of another, allowing
the owner to act in self-defense without moral consequence.
I admit, however, that this theory is far from flawless. One question in particular that
arises is how to weigh freedoms against one another. Do I have the freedom to drive a car that
runs on gasoline if the pollution from the exhaust harms the freedom of others to breathe clean
air? Yet the freedom of equality still seems to be the best combination between absolutism and
relativism: its absolute maxim of freedom to do anything except harm the freedom of others
takes into account the objections of the relativist while denouncing practices like genital
mutilation (which harm the freedom of the circumcised to experience sexual pleasure). The
debate is far from over, but freedom seems to be the best value in a world of little and imperfect
knowledge.