The following is taken from Bernard Getz, Morality vs. Slogans, Center for the Study of Ethics and Society/Western Michigan University, Vol. 3, No. 2, December 1989.
Getz offers a different perspective on the relativists vs. absolutist debate. Essentially he argues
that there are a set of moral rules that all societies would see as valid regardless of cultural
differences. As you can see below, Getz argues that it is wrong to kill, cause pain, disable, and
deprive individuals of freedom and pleasure. At this point you should be alert that we do as
public policy kill, cause pain, disable, and deprive people of freedom and pleasure. We violate
Getz rules directly through the operations within the criminal justice system: capital
punishment, arrests, incarceration, and depravation of freedom and pleasure as a result of
being imprisoned or even on probation or parole. Some societies even cut the hands off of
thieves as punishment prevention. Ouch! How does this square with Getzs position. Is he
wrong or are we immoral as criminal members of the criminal justice system. And if we are
immoral, the citizens who benefit from the way we manage criminal offenders are by default
immoral.
But wait a minute. The utilitarian ethicists recognized that punishing a wrong doer was
immoral, but if his/her punishment deterred other from offending, greater good was attained.
Hence the immoral act of punishment is justified. Looking at this another way, most members
of our society would easily agree with Getzs moral rules. The fact that we argue about capital
punishment, what is a just punishment, etc, indicates our awareness of the moral rules that
underpin our thinking. We say, with complete sincerity: I think taking a, life is wrong, but we
must make an exception to that rule to execute murders to save lives. You may not agree with
the utilitarian logic applied to capital punishment, but we see that arguing on behalf of making
an exception to the rule verifies the rules existence and importance.
The following are brief excerpt from Getz:
What are the rules of, morality i.e., the public system that apply to all rational persons? What
rules would a rational person who wants to avoid the evils want as part of a public system that
applies to everyone? I claim that people would agree on the rules they would want to be part of a
public system that applies to everyone. A list of these rules contains the following five rules:
Do not Kill
Do not Cause Pain
Do not Disable
Do not Deprive of Freedom
Do not Deprive of Pleasure.
Do not Deceive
Keep Your Promise
Don’t Cheat
Obey the Law
Do Your Duty–where Duty includes those actions you are required to do by your job,
your position, your family, your circumstances, etc., e.g., a teacher has a duty to show up
for class.
These are the ten moral rules that all rational persons would want to be part of the public system
that applies to all rational persons. These are all obvious, simple rules that everyone is
supposed to follow regardless of what their personal goal in life is. Careful attention to these
rules shows that they primarily set limits on what one is morally allowed to do.
Notice that they are simple and general. They can be understood by everyone. They are all
prohibitions, or can be stated as prohibitions, “Keep Your Promise” is exactly equivalent to
“Don’t Break Your Promise.” Everyone of those rules can be stated as a prohibition and with no
change in meaning at all. What is not obvious from just looking at them is that they all have
exceptions. The moral rules are not absolute, they have exceptions. They are, however,
universal–they apply to everyone. Many people confuse universal and absolute. The moral rules
are universal, they apply to everyone, but they are not absolute. They have exceptions, but these
exceptions are also universal. I have not run across a single case, not one, where there was moral
disagreement which was not based upon disagreement in the facts.
We all agree on our values and disagree about the facts. If you look carefully and precisely at
what are presented as examples of moral disagreements, I think your own experience will
confirm this claim. Take the example of Star Wars vs. Disarmament. Is there any disagreement
in values? Does one side want to blow-up the world and the other side save it? One side thinks
that Star Wars will save it, the other side thinks that disarmament will save it. They disagree
about the probable consequences of different courses of action, or what the facts of the case are.
They all have the same values–namely avoiding the death and destruction that will accompany
any nuclear exchange.
When people agree on the facts, they almost always agree on when it’s justified to break a moral
rule. This is because they agree that the justified exception has to be a part of the public system.
If you are going to break a moral rule you have to be willing that everyone be publicly allowed
to break the rule in the same circumstances. That this sounds a little like Kant’s Categorical
Imperative is not surprising for the attraction of the Categorical Imperative is that it seems to
capture the kind of impartiality that morality requires. This kind of impartiality does not require
that we break a moral rule only when we would will that everyone actually break the rule in the
same circumstances. Rather it requires that we break the rule only when we would be willing to publicly allow that everyone break it.
Question1: relativism argues that morality is linked to culture, historical time periods and even subgroups. Explain what this means. how do the doctrines of ethical objectivism and ethical universalism contrast with the notion of relativism.
Quetion2: explain the doctrine of pragmatic relativism.in what way is sociological functionalism related to it? how does the doctrine of pragmatic relativism (and sociological functionalism)operate in everyday criminal courtroom deliberations? In decisions linked to probation or parole? In decisions to waive (or not)juveniles to the adult system
Question3: Do you believe there is an objective sense in which right and wrong can be identified? What does the notion of metaethical relativism say about this? If there is no objective ethical basis by which behavior can be deemed right or wrong what are the implications for criminal justice practice (consider law enforcement , court administration, and correctional work, specifically)?
Question 4: In your opinion, is Gert correct in reasoning that morals rules are universal?
Question 5: To what extent the pro-con argument about capital punishment based upon facts or values? Briefly discuss capital punishment from both adeontological and utilitarian ethical perspective.
