What is an explanation for our different interpretations of events? Why were once acceptable things now unacceptable?
A key change might be broadly encapsulated in the shift from “Universality” to the more “Contextual”; the shift from a focus on universal principles to a more context-sensitive approach in ethical theories. This can be seen as reflective of broader societal changes, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. That is in our past it was the people in power who defined and enforced universally across society the rules / norms. Now, as power has become more diffuse, and multiculturalism more prominent, there are more points of view and our “universal” rules / norms lack the same broad acceptance; our benchmarks have widened to be more inclusive, to prevent exclusion.
This, in summary, presents the challenge of comparing choices made in the past with those we would pick today. The benchmarks of the past do not cover the same set of issues that we contend with today. These added criteria just were not considered in past times.
While society’s criteria are in a process of expansion, many traditional ones linger. So how do we deal with a legacy of “moral absolutism” prevalent in the past with the “moral relativism” of today, where conflict resolution is made more difficult as all viewpoints are deemed equally valid.
Options for resolutions include:
- Dialogue and mutual understanding: dialogue to understand the different perspectives, to find the common ground and a potential solution
- Ethical pragmatism: work on a case-by-case basis and rather than work from a common set of principles, look for agreement on desirable outcomes
- External standards, such as human rights codes and legal frameworks
- Compromise and tolerance
It is this last point that presents challenges, as through this process of evolving our social norms, reluctance to change has split our communities in to “tribes” who share little common ground, the space for compromise.
Leave a Reply