We assume morality applies equally to all. Regardless of status, culture, or circumstance, universal principles govern human actions. But critics argue moral universalism is both historically unusual and a Western Enlightenment fantasy. In ancient Rome, duties differed between citizen and slave, elite and commoner. Moral principles do not apply in all circumstances; 'though shalt not kill' does not apply on the battlefield. In Christian Europe, for centuries, opposing sides in battle saw good and God on their side. Nor do we apply the same moral standards to children and adults, and today many wish to apply different moral codes to the oppressed and the powerful.
Do we need to reject moral universalism as a goal that was always implausible and used to defend contradictory actions? Should we see Western moral universalism as a vehicle for imposing a Western perspective and hierarchy on others? Or is the principle of universalism essential to any morality at all, and without it, we are at the mercy of the dominant and the powerful?
Do we need to reject moral universalism as a goal that was always implausible and used to defend contradictory actions? Should we see Western moral universalism as a vehicle for imposing a Western perspective and hierarchy on others? Or is the principle of universalism essential to any morality at all, and without it, we are at the mercy of the dominant and the powerful?
