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.…
References: Quintelier, K. J. P., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2012). Varying versions of moral relativism: the philosophy and psychology of normative relativism. Biology & Philosophy, 27(1), 95+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA331807457&v=2.1&u=oran95108&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w…
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, 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 did not become a prominent topic in philosophy or elsewhere until the 20th century. Moral relativism is the making of an excuse for the action done. Behaviors should not be dismissed under certain circumstances. Moral relativism is dangerous and illogical which can be seen through murders, abortion, and lying.…
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…
Ethical Relativism is the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the meaning of what is right and wrong depends on the individual and culture. Pojman breaks down Ethical Relativism into 2 main concepts: The Diversity Theory and the Dependency Theory. The Diversity Theory addresses the concept of what is morally right and wrong varies from society to society; therefore, there is no universal moral principles that all societies accept. For example, Homosexuality in the Middle East is a forbidden practice, while in ancient Greek culture, it was said to be a accepted practice. The Dependency Theory says that all moral principles receive their validity from cultural acceptance.…
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…
“we need to understand the morals of other cultures,” it says, “we cannot judge the morals of other cultures,” regardless of the reasons for their actions. The contradiction of cultural relativism becomes immediately apparent. A society that embraces the notion that there is no ultimate “right” or “wrong” loses the ability to make any judgments at all.…
Cultural relativism would be the attempt of an anthropologist to look at a culture, understand it as much as possible and then only make judgments in accordance to the values, norms and morals of that particular culture. This point of view seems to make a lot of sense, in terms of gaining the best possible understanding of other cultures. There can, however, also be difficulties in certain cases when actually putting cultural relativism into practice. Aren't there some exceptions to the notion of detached observation being moral? I believe there may be, especially in cases of unjust punishments or mistreatment. I do believe that all people deserve to have at least basic human rights to safety and fair treatment--no matter what their culture commands. It is a reasonable stand point to not want to interfere with the systems of other cultures but, this is what I find to be the largest problem within the concept of cultural relativism. Direct interference maybe uncalled for, but making inhumane and unfair…
Saying that ethics are relative is an effortless way to avoid a controversial topic concerning ethics. In the case of relativism, we can simply say that your opinion is true and mine too and nothing being wrong with that. On the other hand, ethical absolutism tells us that there is an objective moral code and that certain of our actions as humans are necessarily right or wrong. What would happen if we say two contradictory statements can't coexist as Aristotle demonstrated? Through the law of non-contradiction from Aristotle and ethical absolutism, I will argue against ethical relativism.…
The idea of moral relativism is that different civilizations have different moral beliefs, and that there is no absolute moral truth. “There is no actual standard that makes one societal code better than any other.” Each society lives by its cultural norms, and if someone from another culture came and did something different from the norm, then that person would be judged. One of the problems with moral relativism is that we cannot criticize someone for bad behavior because within that person’s society, what they are doing might be moral. An example of moral relativism is in Australia where it’s etiquette is for people to wear black clothes to a funeral, but in Japan it is their etiquette for people to wear white clothes;…
Objectivism is the idea that morality is objective. Objective morality tells us that there is a set of natural rules or laws for how we as humans must treat one another and it cannot be changed or altered. This idea contradicts the theory of moral relativism, which supports the belief that the ideas of morality of being right or wrong are not firm but can be open to interpretation through cultures, people and situations. A great example of these two ideas causing dispute in todays society would be it’s morally wrong to kill someone, but it’s morally right to kill criminals with the death penalty. We are all different and the reality is that we are never all going to agree on things and we are entitled to our own opinions.…
Morality can differ in every culture and society because of how different people are and how disconnected everyone are in the world. Due to this, people have made up idea called cultural relativism. Cultural relativism means each individual understands everyone’s beliefs and activities. But there are many issues that challenges this idea. Furthermore, because there are many different cultures in the world there are many different moral codes.…