In the first podcast of the semester, Dr. Bezio discusses ethics. She opens by reinforcing that content is important, especially when it comes to premises. Warren had us on the lookout for normative premises but did not put a lot of attention on them. There are two ways people think the world works, and these are frameworks are described as normative and relative. A normative framework is one where there is a universal truth that is the same for everyone. We just cannot agree on what that truth is. Normativists believe that we are getting closer every day to that truth, but, they are still constantly at odds with each other over what the truth is.
A good example of normative frameworks is religions. These are all different ideas of what the universal truth is, but there are many religions that all disagree with each other. Ethics, unlike religion, does not require a diety or rituals to determine right or wrong. Normative ethics is simply the belief in a universal truth and a universal idea of what is right or wrong.
Relative ethics is the opposite. There is no universal truth, but instead, each individual has their own idea of good and bad, right or wrong. True relativism does not judge others for their beliefs- Dr. Bezio says that relativism is pure anarchy, without rules and regulations.
Right now, we are “between a relative rock and a normative hard place”- we live in a blend of the two. Some things we leave to individuals and some things society decides need to be regulated. This is cultural relativism and I think that in each election, people use their votes in an attempt to push the needle one way or the other. Traditionally, conservatives would be considered more relative and liberals more normative. There are battles all over the world to push that needle one way or the other, and many debates about which way it is appropriate for that needle to move. Especially right now with Covid, Texas is leaving it up to individuals to decide what they want to do. This is more relative but is it more correct/
I really relate to the ideas that you discuss of normative vs relative, especially in the sense of “Traditionally, conservatives would be considered more relative and liberals more normative”, especially with the mask mandates and businesses fully opening in Texas. I am from/live in Dallas Texas, and although I am not there right now, my family is. This situation and decision by the Texas governor has put everyone in a position where they need to decided what their own moral truths/beliefs are, changing their decisions in opening their business, wearing masks, etc, making them questions both the government officials (as well as their own) normative/relative truths.
I like the quote you pulled out: we are “between a relative rock and a normative hard place.” I think this demonstrates the main idea of the reading. I discussed the difference between relative and. normative ethics in my post and I agree with the idea that right now, we as a society don’t follow one or the other, and honestly, I don’t think we ever will. It’s almost impossible to get everyone to agree on something because everyone has their own opinion of how certain morals play a role in their life.
I want to echo what Olivia said, I like the quote that you pulled out, and I agree, I don’t think that as a society we will ever follow either just a normative or just a relative approach. I think even if everyone could agree on the same approaches for everything, it is possible that it might still not just be a normative or relative approach, but a blended one. While I understand that these are different concepts, I’m not sure that even individuals always fully abide by only one perspective completely.
I like how you tie in religion as an example of normative frameworks. Even if one believes in universal truths, others may not – making universal truths not really universal for all.