Thesis Statement: Pojman's claim that morality has five purposes can be used as an argument against ethical relativism.

            The idea that morality has five purposes, as presented in the essay "On the Nature and Purpose of Morality", can be used as an argument against relativism. In the essay, Louis Pojman claims that morality has the following five purposes: "to keep society from falling apart", "to ameliorate human suffering", "to promote human flourishing", "to resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways", and "to assign praise and blame, reward the good and punish the guilty" (Pojman, 2000). This paper will regard these five purposes of morality as conditions that must be satisfied in order for an act to be morally right and these conditions aim to bring about flourishing communities. Ethical relativism will be defined as stated by John Ladd in page 160, wherein any act committed by an individual or group is morally right if it is acceptable within the society to which the individual or group belongs (Ladd, 1973; Pojman, 2000). This shows that an act cannot be considered right or wrong because there are no universal moral principles that govern an act committed by an individual. Furthermore, one statement will be considered to be an argument against another statement if and only if the first statement can provide at least one instance when the second statement will not hold. In this case, Pojman's claim on the five purposes of morality can be considered as an argument against ethical relativism if it can show that an act can be considered right if it satisfies the five conditions stated earlier, or wrong if it does not satisfy the five conditions, thus showing that ethical relativism cannot be true.

            In order to show that Pojman's essay can be used as an argument against ethical relativism, it has to be shown that the claims made in the essay disprove ethical relativism. Since Pojman's essay argues that morality has five purposes, all of which aim to "create happy and virtuous people" (Pojman, 2000), then an act that is committed by an individual or group can be judged to be right or wrong whether or not the act is acceptable within the community to which the individual or group belongs.

For example, Hitler's persecution of the Jews was acceptable within the society to which he belonged, the Nazi government. However, Jews were forced to suffer unbearable conditions in concentration camps during World War II and many were sentenced to die. More recently, the terrorist attacks on the US were considered just within the terrorist organization itself, even though these attacks resulted in a great deal of damaged property and death. According to Pojman's arguments, the acts of Hitler and these terrorists can be considered morally wrong because they also brought about human suffering.

There are also some people who act in the interest of promoting flourishing human communities, prevent human suffering and prevent the breakdown of society, yet their ideas go against the beliefs held by the majority of people in the society. Such people are called reformers (Pojman, 2000). Malcolm X and Martin Luther King opposed the oppression of African-Americans in the United States during the 1960's. Their acts can be considered morally right because they fought for the equality of different ethnic groups in America, which indeed promotes growth in the community, even if it meant going against the racist mentality that most of the people held during that time.

This logically implies that ethical relativism is wrong. Thus, an individual's or a number of people's actions can be judged to be right or wrong regardless of the fact that the act may or may not be acceptable within the society to which he or she belongs. The only thing that matters in judging

These arguments presented by Pojman, some of which are implied, disprove the theory of ethical relativism, so the essay "On the Nature and Purpose of Morality" can be used as an argument against ethical relativism. The essay provided instances when ethical relativism can be wrong. Pojman asserts that an act indeed has certain conditions that it must satisfy and he further states that morality has goals that it must meet in order for an act to be considered morally right, more specifically, it must "create flourishing communities" (Pojman, 2000).

References

Pojman, L.P. (2000). On the nature and purpose of morality. The Moral Life. 32-41. Oxford University Press. New York, New York.

Pojman, L.P. (2000). The case against moral relativism. The Moral Life. 106-185. Oxford University Press. New York, New York.