Introduction
As a Chinese official who uses moral relativism, I found there were no ethical standards for me during the repression in China in 1989. Thus, the solution of these pro-democracy movements is dispersing the demonstrators to protect their society. On the night of June 3 to 4, it was decided to send tens of thousands of armed service members and hundreds of armored vehicles to the city center to impose martial law and forcibly clear the streets of demonstrators.
Discussion
Our government wanted to “restore order” in the capital. I am taking radical measures with the help of the military so that such events do not happen again. In this case, such extreme measures are correct since they correspond to the values of Chinese society and such repression is morally right. Moreover, it does not matter that these actions seem wrong for other institutions because they are morally correct in this society. I believe that attempts to discuss, perpetuate the memory, and demand justice in connection with what happened should be severely suppressed, as it is necessary to protect the peace of society from such events.
Chinese officials imply that it is necessary to assess whether an action is right or wrong based on the moral norms of the community in which it is committed. The same move may be morally right in one society but ethically wrong in another. For me, no universal moral standards could be applied to all people at all times. The only moral standards by which to judge the practice of society are our own. There can be no general rules for resolving moral disputes or reaching an agreement on ethical issues between members of different cultures.
As a person of Western society who adheres to ethical objectivism, the actions of the Chinese government are unacceptable. Because for me, it does not matter what laws are in which country. There are common moral human rights, and people cannot just take someone’s life because their political actions contradict state foundations. Such events shock me because there are laws above the state, namely moral values and virtue, which are internal laws and do not depend on external factors. The moral law is established and eternal and not subject to any will. No choice can reduce the consequences of actions contrary to the law.
To avoid punishment, people must improve their life and follow the law perfectly. In my understanding, morality is universal and is a set of rules that apply to everyone, regardless of thoughts, feelings, or subgroups. Therefore, mass killings are a violation of this law. An example of moral objectivism is that killing innocent people, cheating, stealing, or harming others is wrong. Since I believe it is wrong to kill and these actions go against moral laws, I am very outraged and will go to demonstrations with other dissenting people in my country. These demonstrations are necessary to raise publicity around this egregious crime and to express solidarity with all the victims, so they know they are not alone.
Thus, I believe such actions are contrary to moral norms, and they should be stopped, and those responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people should be punished. People have the right to life and freedom of speech, but no one can take it away from others.
Both a Chinese official and a citizen of a Western country are arguing about what is morally right. If I had to answer the opposite argument, it could not have a formulaic approach to morality. Society needs rules because they are absolute, providing a structure we can all live. Without restrictions, people have a conflict; when there is a conflict, chaos reigns in society, and then people are confused and their lives are in danger. Since both philosophies are based on their assumptions and principles, it is necessary to apply the features of the moral tenets to determine their validity or inconsistency. Therefore, if one has to compare objectivism with the characteristics of fundamental ethical principles, it becomes clear that objectivism is universal because it is accepted by everyone, every person with every tradition or culture.
This is always true for all people in the appropriate circumstances. It prevails because it does not correspond to emotions, laws, or events. It is accessible because everyone can reason and judge the correctness of their beliefs or actions. This is feasible because it has agreed to standards that all people can use to assess the correctness of actions. On the other hand, if we double-check moral relativism with the features of fundamental ethical principles, it becomes clear that this approach is not universal since it differs between people, traditions, and cultures. It is not crucial because a person’s emotions or preferences can influence it.
This is not prescriptive because it is based on a person’s feelings or beliefs about what is wrong or right. It is not public because each person’s personal opinions are private primarily to the individual and may not be known to others. Finally, moral relativism is not feasible because it has no consistent standards since it depends on personal beliefs and emotions, which are subject to random changes and, therefore, highly unpredictable.
Conclusion
However, to achieve and maintain social order in our communities, in my opinion, objectivism is the only valid philosophy that offers people the opportunity to live a lifetime and is the best means of achieving an ethical life.