The first ethical belief that the author discusses is Cultural Relativism. It talks about the how diversity is becoming more and more apparent between different cultures worldwide. The author mentions that often customs that are unquestioningly accepted in one part of the world are considered abhorrent in another, for example: human sacrifice. Cultural Relativism claims that there are no absolute standards for moral judgment. Basically says that the values that every culture isn't necessarily wrong, just different. I almost completely disagree with this view. The largest problem I have with it rejects absolute truth and its existence. If one were to make the statement "there is no absolute truth," they would have just proven themselves wrong because that is a self-defeating statement.…
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease that composes many factors that contribute to the manisfestations of SLE. These factors include genetic and epigenetic regulation of gene expression, environmental factors, hormones, and a dysfunction in the immune system.…
In this essay, I will discuss James Rachels’ article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, in which he criticizes the normative cultural relativism argument which is about how different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no single truth to define “truth” or a correct set of moral codes because the idea of right or wrong varies within cultures. Firstly I am going to explain what the cultural relativism argument is about and then present my assessment of Rachels’ critique regarding this argument from careful…
Many people are lead to adopt Ethical Relativism because they believe that it justifies their view that one ought to be tolerant of the different behavior of people in other cultures. However, Ethical Relativism does not really justify tolerance at all. All around the world, there are different types of cultures, which have different ethical values that will be correct according to their cultures. Nevertheless, some people might argue about different cultures that have different moral codes that they can not accept; examples: polygamy and infanticide. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism proposes that we can stop the criticism and be more tolerant with other cultures. To illustrate, we could no longer say that custom of other societies…
Moral relativism is one’s perception of what is acknowledged to be morally just or unjust depending on accepted demeanor. Certain behaviors and manners that a specific culture may consider to be acceptable, another culture may consider to be unethical. In such an instance, neither one of the cultures would be incorrect. Morals are culturally defined in that it originates from the root as to what is considered socially acceptable.…
Cultural relativism can be defined as the understanding that the choices one can consider morally right are those approved of by one’s culture. Cultural differences in moral beliefs don’t imply cultural relativism because nonmoral beliefs can alter the perspective of basic moral principles shared by the culture. This would imply that there are no universally set/correct moral standards. Saying that cultural differences in moral beliefs imply cultural relativism is only part of an argument, not a conclusion supported by valid premises. There is the possibility that the moral issue in question is, in fact, an objective truth, in which case the culture is purely wrong. If cultural relativism exists, and no culture can ever be wrong in their moral…
Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse objective moral realism. Rachels defines this as “a standard that might be reasonably used in thinking about any social practice whatever. We may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of people whose lives are affected by it.” That is the moral worth of an action is based upon how it contributes to the society from which it operates in.…
Ethical relativism is a concept in which most simple minded individuals adhere to. According to definition in the chapter, ethical relativism is the normative theory that what is right is what the culture or individual says is right. Shaw argues that it is not very plausible to say that ethical relativism is determined by what a person thinks is right and wrong. He gives reason that it “collapses the distinction between thinking something is right and it’s actually being right.” Ethical relativism may be justified occasionally. William H. Shaw examines ethical relativism by providing comprehensive examples on why relativism is a weak method in gaining morals.…
Moral Relativism is the thought that the moral beliefs held by individuals is influenced and dependent on the culture in which they live in considers tolerable. Hence, what is considered morally appropriate in a single society perhaps is perceived as immoral in a different society. In actuality they both maybe right as they have distinct creators resulting in different laws, diversity, and possibly religious views of each other. Ruth Benedict defends the theory of moral relativism in her article A Defense of Moral Relativism from The Journal of General Psychology. In contrast, William B. Irvine author of Confronting Relativism feels in a few swift examples people can be talked out of their views on moral…
Relativism is the idea that one's beliefs and values are understood in terms of one's society, culture, or even one's own individual values. You may disagree with someone and believe your view is superior, relative to you as an individual; more often, relativism is described in terms of the values of the community in which one lives. The view of ethical relativism regards values as determined by one's own ethical standards, often those provided by one's own culture and background. Rather than insisting that there are moral absolutes, moral claims must be interpreted in terms of how they reflect a person's viewpoint; moral claims are then said to be "right in a given culture" or "wrong for a given society." Perhaps one person lives in a culture where having a sexual relationship outside of marriage is regarded as one of the worst things a person can do; in this culture a person engaging in extramarital sex may be punished or even forced to leave. But another culture might have a considerably different…
What one may believe is right and worthy in their own culture may seem taboo in another culture’s standards. This is because of the use of cultural relativism, which is the belief that something is good or wrong if and only if it is approved or disapproved in a given culture. Right and wrong values vary from society to society; therefore, there is no standard base to judge what is universally right or wrong between the different cultures. Because of this, societies may disagree about the morality of what is right and wrong. Gensler believes that if cultural relativism is true, then there are no right or wrong moral values within a culture’s belief, because objective truths can still exist.…
This premise of cultural relativism shows prefigure of moral relativism. Moral relativism can be generally grouped into three categories; (1) descriptive moral relativism, (2) normative moral relativism, and (3) meta-ethical moral relativism. Descriptive relativism, according to Frankena, is the idea ‘that the basic ethical beliefs of different people and societies are different and even conflicting’ [1973:109]. The second form of ethical relativism conceives the idea that ‘what is really right or good in the one case is not so in another. Such a normative principle seems to violate the requirements of consistency and universalization’[1973:109]. The last among the three reveals that ‘there is no objectively valid, rational way of justifying one against another; consequently, two conflicting basic…
Cultural relativism is contradictory when it states that every culture should embrace a policy of tolerance towards other cultures. To begin with, cultural relativism states right and wrong differ from one cultural to another, it does not imply that other cultures have to tolerate that point of view. The fact of the matter is, one culture believes one idea and another may have another idea. These cultures are not going to change their point of view, or remotely agree with the other culture if their views are contradictory. Each culture has its own beliefs, there is no room for tolerance in true cultural relativism.…
Our text discusses the challenge relativism presents to various ethical and religious viewpoints. Consider a specific moral question which might make it difficult to accept the relativist's response. State the moral issue involved, and provide an explanation as to why you think a relativist might have problem giving a justified response to it.…
- Cultural Relativism seems intuitively true, but be aware that disagreement does not entail that there is not a correct answer to moral questions (p. 26-27)…