9/15/21, 2:25 PM 3.

2 Ethical monism, relativism and pluralism

Unit 1 Introduction to Ethics

3.2 Ethical monism, relativism and pluralism

So far, you have been introduced to a range of approaches to considering ethical dilemmas. As you have been reading them, you will
probably have agreed with a lot of the theories that have been introduced so far. It would seem sensible to take a decision that has the
best possible outcome for all concerned (utilitarianism). But, at the same time, you may also believe that there are some universal rights
which all humans have (deontology). You probably also do things each day because you think it makes you a good person and not because
of any duty or consequences that this action might have (virtue ethics).

It is clear that philosophers propose many different approaches to deciding what action is right or wrong. Which of those approaches is
right? How can this be determined? And, importantly, who should decide which ethic is the correct one to adopt? If it cannot objectively be
decided which approach is right, does this mean that the study of ethics is nothing more than a series of different people's opinions?
Perhaps they are all right! If so, what happens when the different frameworks reach different conclusions or even conflict?

Such questions can be approached in several ways. Some philosophers argue that it is possible to make objective decisions about our ethics
and that identifying one, valid ethical theory should be the main task of philosophers. This position is called ethical monism. Others
philosophers, in contrast, believe that it is impossible to make such objective ethical judgements and that any decision about which
particular ethical approach is 'right' is nothing more than a personal preference, and will depend on people's individual feelings, their cultural
and religious background, etc. This position is called ethical relativism.

Do you think that you are an ethical monist or an ethical relativist? Do you think there is another option?

A dilemma

Traditional ethical theories (such as deontological theories) are generally absolutist and normative because they reflect a belief in universally
applicable moral principles and objective qualities of right and wrong, on which there need be no debate. So, many of the principles we
looked at in the previous section are monist. Monism is nice and tidy. It simply asks us to choose one moral framework and to apply it to
our ethical decision-making.

But how many of us can call ourselves monists? As you were reading through the ethical theories in the previous section you probably
found yourself agreeing with more than one of the theories. Many philosophers have argued that the world is not the neat and tidy place
that monists would have it be. People often use a range of ethical frameworks to make their decisions.

So should we argue then for ethical relativism, and say that all ethical frameworks have some validity? If you accept the ethical relativist's
argument, this leaves the study of ethics in a difficult position. If we cannot say that our ethical frameworks amount to anything more than
personal preference, then we are not left in a very strong position to promote any one ethical decision over another. Development ethicists
would have to conclude that whatever a particular culture promoted as right or wrong, was indeed right or wrong for that culture.
Environmental ethics would not be able to hope to fulfil its promise of addressing the environmental crisis by promoting forms of decision-
making that will protect and conserve the non-human world, as there would be no basis for arguing that people should adopt alternative
frameworks for thinking about the natural world. The study of ethics would become nothing more than describing and comparing the ethical
arguments. There would be no question of being able to promote one ethical argument over another.

What would be some of the dangers of devising international development policy on ethical monism? What would some of the
dangers be of promoting ethical relativism?

Ethical pluralism

We are not adopting a monist approach to ethics here. You are not expected to be able to argue that one of the ethical traditions
introduced in the previous section is better than the others in all situations. However, neither do we argue that all ethical arguments are
equally valid. An alternative to the rigidity of ethical monism and the 'anything goes' attitude of ethical relativism is ethical pluralism (see
3.2.1).

3.2.1 Ethical pluralism

'Pluralism is an alternative to monism and to relativism. Rejecting the monist view that there is only one correct answer in ethics,
pluralists also reject the relativist claim that there can be no right answer. Instead, moral pluralists maintain that there is a plurality
of moral truths that cannot (perhaps unfortunately) be reconciled into a single principle. According to monists, this posture is the
same as relativism.'

Source: DesJardins (2006) pp. 262-263)

https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P563_EED_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_22.htm 1/3
9/15/21, 2:25 PM 3.2 Ethical monism, relativism and pluralism
DesJardins argues that that we are probably asking too much of ethics if we expect one, single, correct answer to every moral dilemma we
Unit
face. 1 Introduction
While to usually
science and mathematics Ethics
seek or require - and sometimes even provide - certainty and unambiguous answers, it may
not be appropriate to expect the same of ethics. But this, he argues, does not mean that we have to abandon rationality. While
mathematics may (usually) be able to give us a single, unequivocally correct answer, even sciences such as medicine do not always give
one answer; there may be a number of valid ways to interpret a test or to treat a certain condition. Two different but equally competent
doctors may therefore prescribe slightly different treatments. However, this does not mean that all treatments are equally valid. There is a
big difference, DesJardins (2006 p. 264) points out, 'between a good physician and a quack'.

In the context of environmental ethics, DesJardins (2006) argues out that, while there are large areas of disagreement, there are a number
of areas where strong consensus does exist between environmental ethicists. For example, almost all agree that the narrow approach to
environmental valuation within classical economics and the preference utilitarianism that forms the backbone of many environmental policy
decisions should be rejected. While different approaches give different answers to explain why it is wrong, it is agreed that valuing the
environment solely in terms of a human resource for short-term economic gain is not acceptable, given the limitations and fragility of
natural ecosystems.

Intrapersonal pluralism

Ethical pluralism is the acceptance that there may be more than one correct moral framework that we can use. However, it differs from
relativism in that it does not accept that all frameworks are equal - morality, according to a pluralist, does not simply come down to
personal preference. It is possible to make rational judgements between various frameworks and to judge some to be better than others.

The debate over whether ethicists should be searching for one single unified moral framework (as moral monists believe) or whether a
range of frameworks can be useful to us (as moral pluralists believe) has become quite heated, and the argument is complicated by there
being several different forms of moral pluralism. Here, we make only a single distinction between two broad types of pluralism. The first
question that we will consider is whether one person can legitimately use different ethical frameworks to make different decisions. This is
called intrapersonal pluralism. Can we use Kantian deontology to make one ethical decision and then use virtue ethics to make another?
The second question is whether it is acceptable for different people, or different cultures, to use different systems of ethics. This is the
question of interpersonal pluralism. While the arguments surrounding the pluralism debate are rather complex, the question of whether
we can acceptably follow more than one ethical theory is, nevertheless, important to consider.

Consider the type of moral pluralism described above. Do you think we can use different moral theories for
different relationships? Think about the ethical decisions that you take. Do you use different ethical frameworks for
different decisions? Do you sometimes defend your answers using rights theory, for example, and at other times
use utilitarian reasoning?

First we are going to consider intrapersonal pluralism. J Baird Callicott is an environmental philosopher who argues against adopting
moral pluralism. Read 3.2.2 and consider his arguments.

3.2.2 Callicott's characterisation of pluralism

'Moral pluralism, crudely characterized - I hope not crudely caricatured - invites us to adopt one theory to steer a course in our
relations with friends and neighbours, another to define our obligations to fellow citizens, a third to clarify our duties to more
distantly related people, a fourth to express the concern we have for future generations, a fifth to govern our relationship with
nonhuman animals, a sixth to bring plants within the purview of morals, a seventh to tell us how to treat the elemental
environment, an eighth to cover species, ecosystems, and other environmental collectives, and perhaps a ninth to explain our
obligations to the planet, Gaia, as a whole and organically unified living thing.'

Source: Callicott (1990) p. 104

Callicott (1990) argues that this type of inconsistency ends up frustrating individuals. Mature moral agents need one system, he believes.
Otherwise, what do we do when these principles overlap and contradict? Pluralists suggest that we prioritise our ethics, use our intuition,
moral tastes, and sensitivities to work out which to follow. But Callicott (1990) argues that individuals cannot play 'metaphysical musical
chairs': we cannot be utilitarians one minute, and then slip into Kantianism the next. We cannot live with constant self-contradiction.

Furthermore, Callicott (1990) believes that pluralism can allow unscrupulous or weak moral agents to choose principles that favour their own
advantage.

'With a variety of theories at our disposal, each indicating different, inconsistent, or contradictory courses of action, we
may be tempted to espouse the one that seems most convenient or self-serving in the circumstances.'

Source: Callicott (1990) p. 110-111

Has your opinion of pluralism changed? Do you think that Callicott's arguments are valid? Does an individual need
one, unified theory to cover all the ethical decisions that they make in order to be consistent?

Interpersonal pluralism

https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P563_EED_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_22.htm 2/3
9/15/21, 2:25 PM 3.2 Ethical monism, relativism and pluralism
You may have reached the conclusion that, in order to be consistent, an individual cannot play 'metaphysical musical chairs' and select
Unit 1 Introduction
different to Ethics
ethical frameworks to justify different moral decisions as they please. You may agree with Callicott (1990) that an individual needs
one coherent moral framework that is not contradictory. Or, alternatively, you may think that it is acceptable for different ethical theories to
be used for different relationships or in different areas of life.

Whatever your answer, these questions relate to intrapersonal pluralism - the theory that one individual person can rationally follow more
than one ethical theory. Here, in contrast, we consider a slightly different question. Even if we say that a person should follow only one,
unified ethical theory, does this mean that everyone in the world should follow this theory? In other words, is there only one, morally
correct theory to follow, or can we consistently argue that what is right for me does not necessarily have to be right for everyone,
everywhere in the world? If you believe that we can argue the latter, then you are an interpersonal pluralist.

(a) Make a list of the different ethical frameworks that have been suggested so far in the unit.

(b) In terms of the decisions that you have had to make, which framework(s) best fit(s) the kind of decisions you have taken?

(c) Now consider this list again. Having studied the unit so far, is there an ethical framework that you would like to adopt as an
alternative to the framework(s) that you identified in your answer above?

(d) Would you recommend that ethical framework to anyone else? Why (not)?

(e) If your answer to (d) is 'yes', what arguments would you use?

However, before we accept pluralism as a useful compromise, we should think very carefully about the consequences. What would happen if
different people followed different ethical frameworks within a society? Could some people potentially lose out? For example, if one person
follows a deep ecology ethic, but their neighbour follows an anthropocentric utilitarian ethic, there is likely to be conflict between them. How
do we deal with these conflicts? How do we decide who is right or wrong?

Whatever the answers to these questions may be, pluralists point out that interpersonal pluralism is what, in fact, we encounter particularly
in today's multicultural societies. Then again, why is it that people coming from different societies should have different ideas about the
environment and should use different ethical frameworks?

Taking a pluralist approach clearly has its difficulties. However, when we look at development and environmental policies, it will often be the
case that there is not one clearly 'correct' decision to take and numerous incorrect ones. Moreover, each decision will probably result in an
outcome where some people gain and some people suffer. Not all of these options will be equally good or bad. Examining the ethical issues
behind each option can help us to make clearer decisions - and can hopefully ensure that we choose one of the better options.

https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P563_EED_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_22.htm 3/3