Abstract

Until quite recently, the virtually unchallenged position of those scientists who studied the way people acquire their morality was cultural and ethical relativism. The central tenet of that position is this: although all societies have a morality, that is, a set of general authoritative norms and standards to which its members are expected if not compelled to conform, these norms and standards not only vary enormously from one society to another, but there is no objective way of ranking them. In particular, there is no single ideal objective moral order, to which these various social moralities can be seen as less or more successful approximations, and which enables us to appraise them, on the basis of the degree of that approximation, as less or more advanced, sound, or valid. The whole of morality is thus construed as “agent-morality”: a measure of a person’s concern to conform his behavior to “objective” norms and standards; on the relativist view those dominant in the group to which he belongs. On this view, the role of moral education would be confined to assisting and making more efficient the informal processes by which the current moral norms and standards of the group become internalized in its members. Socialization is conceived as a purely one-way process: that of moulding the individual so that he will conform to the group mores.