Table of Contents |
To begin with, recall that conventionalism is a relativist theory of ethics that maintains that what is good is determined relative to a society, convention, or culture. On this account, no society or culture is better than another.
Sometimes our intuitive or everyday views about right and wrong match up with what the conventionalist says about morality.
EXAMPLE
A conventionalist in just about any culture will say that cannibalism is generally wrong. The impermissibility of cannibalism makes sense to most of us.Another common ethical view is that health care of some kind is needed in any well-functioning society. A conventionalist will see that most cultures find health care beneficial and thus say it is morally desirable.
Much of what you find intuitively right or wrong is learned from the society you’re brought up in. Thus, if you’re a conventionalist, your intuitions are likely to match up with the ethical evaluations you make with this theory.
EXAMPLE
Consider the overlap of intuitions and conventions on the issue of workplace interaction between men and women.
It should be noted that a Saudi Arabian might find the impermissibility of men and women interacting in the workplace counterintuitive. In this case they will be in disagreement with the conventionalist in their own country, but in agreement with the conventionalist in America.
There are other ways that your moral intuitions might go against the conventionalist. For instance, your views might not fit with how your own society works.
EXAMPLE
Most American’s intuitively think child labor is wrong. But since cheap clothing, for instance, is supplied to this country through the exploitation of child labor, a conventionalist will say that it is morally permissible.Sometimes it is not clear whether or not our everyday moral views fit with the conventionalist. This is sometimes due to the fact that there isn’t a consensus on an issue in a particular society.
EXAMPLE
In Britain, as in many countries, there is a split between those who think eating meat is wrong, and those who think it isn’t wrong. Therefore, conventionalism cannot come up with a clear answer on whether or not eating meat is impermissible in places such as Britain.Another issue that divides a population is the use of recreational drugs.
EXAMPLE
People from many countries think that some recreational drugs are permissible, as long as people are adequately educated about them. Other people think that recreational drugs lead to other, more damaging, behaviors, and are therefore impermissible.Here, there is a conflict between those who think drugs are bad for society and those who think they do not necessarily cause harm to society. For the conventionalist, then, it is undecided as to whether it is permissible or impermissible.
Philosophers working in ethics often try to apply ethical theories to specific situations. Let’s consider how conventionalists might apply their ethics to the following issues (assuming they are American).
| Conventionalism and Applied Ethics | |
|---|---|
| Issue | Position |
| Environment | People disagree about whether or not non-human nature has a moral status. Therefore, a conventionalist would give an uncertain result. |
| Abortion | People are divided over this. Some think it is acceptable, others think it is unacceptable. A conventionalist would give an uncertain result. |
| Contraception | Most people think the use of contraception is acceptable. A conventionalist would therefore say it is permissible. |
If you disagree with the judgments based on what is accepted or what contributes to the functioning of a society, then you may not think conventionalism is the best ethical theory.
Source: Office workers image, public domain, http://bit.ly/2bwjPhu
