When President Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation in 1863 ethics and fundamental moral values are perceived by numerous historians to have been his key motivations. Ethics is thought to have played a significant role in the American civil war. The union states advocating for phasing out and eventual extinction of slavery while the confederate states insisted on a slave driven cotton based economy. The union states were of the opinion that no human being should be subjected to suffering, torture and forced labor for the benefit of another human being. We are introduced to the concept of ethical subjectivism, which states that everyone has, and is entitled to an opinion, but these are just thoughts and feelings rather than concrete facts thus no one is truly right. With this logic, a moral argument can be made for either side. The union states thought that slavery was wrong while the confederate states thought that it was the sole lifeline for their economy. By this concept of ethical subjectivism, these are just opinions and thus neither the prior nor the latter has a clear-cut moral motive to judge the other.
Cultural relativism dictates that every culture has its own way of thinking and a unique moral code. The conduct of a given culture can only be best understood under the context and background of that culture. It is therefore, not right for one culture to judge another as immoral or otherwise. With this argument, we can argue that since no moral truths exist it was not right for the north to judge the south for its practice of slavery, this being part of the latter’s culture. We can also argue that if one culture is committing large-scale genocide under the pose of cultural relativism we would thus be forced to view this not as a wrong act but a morally diverse one, thus giving rise to an ethical crisis. It would have been highly immoral and unethical for the north to turn a blind-eye to the plight of the slaves in the south cultural relativism not withstanding since there are several moral and ethical values shared by most cultures of the world.
The North’s actions to free all slaves can be thought of as humanitarian and unselfish, but under philosophical egoism, a completely different paradigm of thought is. This concept brings to light that most the people’s acts are actually selfish acts committed to gaining some sort self-worth, it is not to anything without self-interest. We can thus argue that the north used the issue of slavery to get on a high horse with respect to the south and make itself seem to be leading a more significant and profound lifestyle. We can also argue that even though it might not have been apparent to the north at the time, it indeed was acting in its own best self-interest with regard to the issue of slavery.
Religion plays a significant role in ethics and morality and seems to be more inclined towards following a set of rules rather than sound reasoning. The north sought to coalesce their cause of freedom with religious doctrines that all men are equal and should thus be treated as such. This is indeed in line with most religious teachings, but what if the south had been an atheist territory? It would be a form of slavery all together for the north to impose its moral inclination on the south since, by the religious code; no one should be forcefully subjected to the will of another.
The South’s argument can be strengthened by the social contract theory, which states that a minority can explicitly surrender some if their rights to the majority for continue protection. Under this argument, the south finds vindication for its slavery policy, but the argument can also be put forward in the North’s favor that the south overstepped its mandate and the north was morally obliged to intervene.
Works Cited
Rachels, James. The elements of moral philosophy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003. Print.
Rivers, R. H., and Thomas O. Summers. Elements of moral philosophy. Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Methodist Pub. House, 2004. Print
