Face it, we live in a touchy culture. When people disagree, it can end in an argument, leading to a strain in relationships. So in order to fight this, people tend to censor themselves and beat around the bush so that they don't accidentally offend someone. This kind of belief system is known as "minimalist ethics," meaning that people live however they want just as long as they don't harm the people around them.
What's right versus what's wrong in today's society has been a difficult topic to talk about. Whether it's about gun control or abortion, no one can seem to agree. But because there's no easy way to have civil conversation about these issues, we find comfort in accepting what we know and avoid challenging others' opinions. We're afraid to offend. We're afraid of how our beliefs reflect our character. We're afraid of challenging views which will empty the world of its meaning.
Recommended for you
So, with minimalist ethics, there's a way to avoid these kinds of mishaps.
What is basically being claimed is that all ethics should be basic in order to avoid any societal contradictions amongst one another. If we as a culture keep everything mundane, then it is impossible to have any misconceptions and misunderstandings... right? "No harm no foul" is what this type of ethics is trying to get at. If there is not a possible way of hurting others, then it's okay to just continue on with your own thoughts and beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with others.
Is it possible that this generation isn't just as tolerable as the past? It's not uncommon to hear older generations complain about millennials and how we've become too sensitive as a whole. So is minimalistic ethics really just another way of making sure people don't get hurt? Really, all this branch of ethics is claiming is that there's no objective or absolute morality, and that each and every one of us is right when it comes to good vs. evil and right vs. wrong.
There's a problem with this theory, though. It's filled with ignorance and inconsistency. What is alright with us may not be okay with others. We may think we're not hurting anyone with our actions, but there is still damage that is being done. It's like turning a cold shoulder on the problems that are right in front of our faces. If these are the outcomes that are taking place, then they contradict the premises that make up "minimalist ethics."
The implication that "I'm not hurting anybody" is subjective and relative. How can you tell if you're hurting someone based off your own personal opinion? In the end, it's just a problematic theory.
