Ethics are concerned with what is good or bad, right or wrong, responsible or irresponsible. It addresses different perspectives: individual, community or cultural. Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, deals with moral thinking, moral problems or judgements. It is a philosophy. Two major philosophical theories can be distinguished- Ethical Relativism and Ethical Absolutism. “Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions vary from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards on all man at all times “(Pojman 2001, p.38). “Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs “(Pojman 2001, p.38). This is only feasible when cultures don’t have to interact with each other. Evidently the opposite is the case today with the WWW, international Olympic

games or multinational corporations. Whereas ethical absolutism ⁱ argues that values (truth, moral goodness, life, justice etc.) are independent of human opinion and have a common or universal application (Scruton, 2001). The debate which theory is right has been a major subject of discussion and perhaps will never be answered for certain. Nevertheless this essay will argue against the statement that all ethical perspectives are relative. I disagree with the statement if we see the term “relative” just in context of the pure theory of ethical relativism. There is a certain level of relativity, but the question is what are they relative to, what part is relative and how much is relative? Is it relative to cultures, nations, groups or individuals? Is the behaviour, the fundamental values or the actions relative? How much is relative? And what makes an action right or wrong?

This essay will try to find answer to these questions and conclude that there is a strong value in having ethical guidelines whether it is on a personal level, within societies or more specifically in business contexts.

  2

Certainly basic values are necessary to collective survival and have been created in every society. A minimalist set of such values which are considered as ethically wrong in almost all

cultures, can be recognized across societal and other boundaries. P. F. Strawson ⁱⁱ pointed out three categories of moral values - the positive duties of mutual care and reciprocity; the negative injunctions concerning violence, deceit, and betrayal; and the norms for certain rudimentary procedures and standards for what is just. Referred to as a, "minimal interpretation of morality" (Schroth 2001). This minimal set is necessary for societies to survive or even to exist. Without rules prohibiting murder and assault, people cannot live together in the long run - they would destroy their society from within. Without rules and guidelines requiring trustfulness communication would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Accordingly complex societies, which are linked trough business, cannot exist without communication among their members, society would become impossible and therefore also business. All these are, not surprisingly the

values to be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ⁱⁱⁱ . These absolute rights are commonly accepted by the great majority of countries. It can therefore be argued that absolute rights, like the Human Rights are considered to be necessary, valuable and valid for all countries or societies worldwide. For this very reason most constitutions and basic laws are build on exactly these rights and consequently absolute ethics built the basis for courts and order to be maintained.

A number of critiques have been lodged against the doctrine of ethical relativism. They point out that if ethical relativism is true therefore all moral principles valid relative to culture and individual choice are also right. Then the most outrageous practices, such as female genital mutilation, slavery or the atrocities of the Second World War are “right”, because they are just

  3

contrasted by the standards of the relevant society and therefore many things we believe today would be false. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008). We have to realize that at certain points it is our duty to stand up against evil, even when it is outside of our own borders. If ethical relativism was universally spread the Nürnberg Trials would have never happened. This demonstrates clearly the need and value of absolute ethical guidelines and their associated with judicature.

Another criticism of the above statement is the fact that we sometimes want or have to question our own societies or personal values or more specifically our way of doing business. If ethical relativism is correct, it could not make sense of reforming or improving our own society’s values or morals or just trying to become a better person, as there would be no standard against which our existing practices could be judged deficient (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008). Absolute ethics in comparison allows us to compare actions and judge the actions of others. We have, at least sometimes; to make judgements, change things or to verify that certain things like the Nazi regime will never ever happen again. To contrast the atrocities of the WW2 to business ethics seems too drastic, yet although it is on a less extreme level ethical behaviour in the business world also needs to be judged and adjusted. Unethical behaviour in business is not just a recent phenomenon. In the sixth century B.C: the Greek philosopher Aristotle's said “The market is a place set apart where men may deceive another”(Poirer s.d.). In recent years more and more companies wrote down their perspectives of ethics in form of Business Code of Conducts, as a result of the more and more globalised work environment. Companies have to deal with employees, suppliers and customers from all around the world. Ethical standards, regardless of any organization, have a universal purpose, and that purpose is to create an atmosphere of wellbeing for every single person involved. From the employees, management, owners, stakeholders

  4