The concept of non-binary moral reasoning has been gaining traction as an alternative to traditional Western moral philosophy that is based on universal principles. This approach suggests that morality should be understood in terms of specific contexts rather than abstract rules, and that different cultures may have different moral expectations. In this view, there are no absolute truths about what is right or wrong; instead, each individual must decide for themselves how they will act according to their own values and circumstances. While this may seem like a radical departure from traditional moral philosophy, it has implications for how we understand ethics more broadly. Can non-binary moral reasoning replace universality with ethical relationality as its foundation?
One way to think about this question is through the lens of feminist theory, which emphasizes the importance of recognizing power dynamics in interpersonal interactions. Feminists argue that morality cannot be reduced to universal principles because these principles often favor those who already hold power over others.
White men have historically benefited from systems of oppression such as colonialism and capitalism, while women and people of color have been marginalized. If we take this perspective seriously, then it makes sense to rethink morality in terms of relationships between individuals, rather than abstract rules that apply to everyone equally.
Non-binary moral reasoning also challenges the idea that morality can be reduced to a set of logical steps or calculations. Instead, it highlights the role of emotions, embodiment, and social interaction in shaping our moral decisions. We are not mere rational agents who can make calculated choices; rather, our emotions and embodied experiences shape our understanding of what is good or bad. This means that moral judgment is always situated within specific contexts and influenced by our relationships with others. As such, we should see ethics not just as a matter of choosing between right and wrong but as a process of engaging with others in meaningful ways.
There are some concerns with non-binary moral reasoning. One concern is that it could lead to relativism, where there are no objective standards for judging behavior. If everything is relative to culture or individual preference, then how do we ensure that people don't harm each other? Non-binary moral reasoning does not provide an easy answer to this question, but it may suggest that we need to develop new approaches to preventing harm, such as through community dialogue and collective action. Another concern is that non-binary moral reasoning could become overly focused on personal choice at the expense of broader social justice issues.
If I decide that stealing from corporations is okay because they are exploitative, this does not necessarily address systemic inequality. To fully embrace non-binary moral reasoning, we would need to consider how these decisions impact society as a whole.
While non-binary moral reasoning challenges traditional Western philosophical frameworks, it offers us an opportunity to rethink morality in terms of relationships rather than abstract principles.
We still face important questions about how to ensure fairness and prevent harm in a world where ethical decision-making is based on individual values and social contexts.
Can non-binary moral reasoning replace universality with ethical relationality as its foundation?
No, I do not think that non-binary moral reasoning can replace universalism with ethical relationality as its foundation. Ethical relationality is based on the idea that morality is relative to context and culture, whereas universalism suggests that there are absolute moral truths that apply across all cultures and situations.