Are we calling for moral relativism?
Not at all. Moral relativism tells us that morality is, whatever we believe it is. Some will say, that this is determined individually. These are antinomianists, though given man's natural tendency to seek the easiest path to follow, and the lack of reciprocity promised by this value system, they tend to rapidly become nihilists. (Those who believe that there is no right or wrong, that nothing matters, and that life means nothing at all).
Others say that morality is what "society" deems it to be. This raises the interesting question of what "society" is. Is it the people in our immediate vicinity, those in our neighborhood, our town, our state, our nation, our region of the world, the planet, what? Those who endorse this viewpoint often seem to stop at the national level (saying that the people in one country have no right to judge the actions of those of another, within their borders), without offering any rationale for this choice. In the process, without even noticing that they're doing it, they are proposing an absolute rule of morality - one should do what one's society considers to be right. In principle, then, they admit that there can be such a thing as an absolute moral law, by the very way in which they try to deny it, undermining the foundation that they would seek to erect their philosophy upon.
Here, we are speaking of rule utilitarianism, which tells us that morality is determined by the impact that the policies we adopt have on those around us. That is to say, we are called upon to adopt those rules of behavior, that would be best to live under. What those are, is a function of human nature in general, and of the individual natures of those one's actions affect. This is not to be mistaken with our opinions, about what that nature, or that impact, might be. That is a different thing, and each of us knows that it is, though at present it is not fashionable to admit this.
Ever have an experience that was not as bad as you thought it would be or was far better or far worse than you ever imagined? In such a case, what you thought your feelings were was out of step with what they actually were. You were confronted with the reality that your self knowledge was not perfect. As, indeed, it never can be, because the very act of exploring one's own feelings, creates the experience of that exploration, which one remembers, and becomes part of the very base of experience that shapes the feelings that you are examining. What determined what was good or bad for you was not your expectation of the experience to come, but the reality.
Nor is it merely our feelings about things that may come, that is not so clear as one might imagine. Now, if you would disagree, try to come up with an objective description, of the sensation of happiness. You can't. It is not a thing accessible to the senses. We can only see the manifestations of it in others, not the reality itself. We see a smile - we perceive happiness. We see tears, we perceive sorrow. But these expressions are only labels, that we attach to internal mental states, that are not directly accessible to others. How does one know that the state one of applies one of these labels to, is at all comparable to that another does? Given this, if the mental state one attaches the label of "happiness" to should gradually drift in a darker direction, and the standard one measures it by should slip, would one necessarily even know? Especially if, angrily assering ones own knowledge of what it is, that one feels, one never feels the need to look deeper?
It is not the labels we attach at the moment, that we are to define good or bad fortune in terms of, but the labels that we would attach if we were to overcome the conditioning that we have been subjected to, both by the actions of others, and by our own reactions to our preconceptions, and the cast they give to our experiences. That is, if we were to obtain perfect knowledge of our own natures, as they are at each moment, and of our fundamental natures, those immutable cores of our being, which determine what our momentary natures are capable of becoming. But, as we already know, such perfect self knowledge is unattainable. One can merely approximate it, with an imperfect image of self (as one has an often even more imperfect image of another). Consequently, we do not expect to have a perfect knowledge of what is good or bad fortune, or moral or immoral - to possess a complete, and unflawed ethical system - but merely to possess an understanding of a system of morality that is an imperfect reflection of the true one, whose imperfections are a reflection of the imperfection of our self-knowledge, as a species.
This true system must ever be sought, though it can never be attained. This is much akin to the situation of the scientist who, confronted with a body of physical laws, which he can never completely describe, must be satisfied with creating a simplified, and imperfect, picture of reality. It should be one which is more compatible with what he can observe of that external reality (which he can't completely understand) than the other pictures (models of reality) proposed, suggesting that his model is a less distorted image of that reality, than its competitors.
If someone asks how one can have a clearer image of another than he has of himself, and given this, how can we question the view another people has of what good is for it, let us point out that this is not the dawn of history, and we do have a body of collected experience to draw on. Often, experiences of those who overcame convention, and found that those around them discovered that they were happy about this. One can not discover that which is purely a matter of opinion - that would be reshaped by those very opinions, ruling out the possibility of a surprise. But one can find the objective truth, of that which is hidden within.
Question :
"Yes, but don't you speak of different social systems, as if more than one could be legitimate?"Choices ...