Moral particularism is a nuanced approach to ethics that pushes back against the traditional ethical theories that rely heavily on the existence and application of universal moral principles. These principles, in theories such as deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, are considered to guide or dictate what is morally right or wrong, good or bad, in any given situation.
Deontologists, for instance, argue that there are certain duties or rules (like “do not lie”) that should be followed regardless of the circumstances. Consequentialists, on the other hand, believe that the moral worth of an action is determined by its consequences – the most ethical action is the one that maximizes good outcomes. Meanwhile, virtue ethicists advocate for the development of good character traits, and suggest that virtuous individuals will know the right thing to do in each situation.
Moral particularism, on the contrary, asserts that morality is inherently contextual, and so we cannot boil it down to a set of universal rules or principles that are applicable in every situation. Proponents of moral particularism argue that each moral judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific features of the situation rather than applying overarching moral principles. This is not to say that moral principles are entirely useless, rather they argue that these principles can at best serve as guidelines and can often be misleading or inadequate when making moral decisions.
Jonathan Dancy, a prominent moral particularist, proposes that what makes an action right or wrong in a particular situation is the result of a unique combination of various factors. Each moral situation is unique, and what may be a relevant consideration in one context may not be in another. For example, lying might generally be considered morally wrong, but there may be specific situations (like lying to protect someone’s life) where lying becomes the morally right action. Thus, it’s the context that is vital and we can’t make an accurate moral judgment without considering all the specific elements in the situation.
Moral particularism stands in stark contrast to moral generalism, which advocates for the existence and application of universal moral principles. In moral generalism, it is possible to abstract certain principles that apply across all or most moral situations.
However, even within moral particularism, there are varying degrees of belief and interpretations. Moderate particularists might accept some form of general principles but insist that their application can be overruled by particular circumstances. Meanwhile, radical particularists reject the notion of universal moral principles altogether.
As such, moral particularism is a complex, rich, and diverse philosophical position. It reminds us that morality isn’t always clear cut and requires a deep, thoughtful, and careful examination of each unique situation. This view challenges the assumption that one-size-fits-all when it comes to moral judgments and asks us to approach ethical dilemmas with an open mind, considering all the factors involved before making a moral decision.
