Relativism means that there is no universal or objective moral standard. Instead, it is believed that each person’s morality will be different. A theory called situation ethics argues that the morality or conduct of an act depends on its context. There are no universal moral guidelines that should be applied in every circumstance. The individual conscience is what determines whether a situation ethics decision is right or wrong.
Although I am partial to the assertion that relativism is rampant today in society, they sometimes overwhelm individuals with well-developed consciences. These ethical theories may be more common in today’s society. However, they are useful for certain circumstances. In a world that is increasingly multi-cultural, for example, it may be hard to find a set that applies to all people. Respecting and understanding different cultures and values can be achieved through relativism.
But, relativism and situation ethics are problematic when applied to extremes. It can be difficult to hold people accountable for their actions if there is no standard of morality, particularly in cases where others are being hurt. Additionally, depending on one’s own conscience for moral guidance can result in a loss of coherence and consistency when making moral decisions.
While relativism, situation ethics, and both are good options, I feel that there is a need for a more balanced approach. While we should acknowledge the value of each individual’s conscience, it is equally important to recognize that there are objective moral standards and responsibility for our actions.