Lenn Goodman Analysis
ARE THERE UNIVERSAL MORAL REQUIREMENTS AND IS SOME MORALS UNIVESRALLY KNOWN AS WRONG? CHALLENGES TO RELATIVISM
Heidi Derflinger
SOC 120
June 13, 2011
ARE THERE UNIVERSAL MORAL REQUIREMENTS AND IS SOME MORALS UNIVERSALLY KNOWN AS WRONG? CHALLENGES TO RELATIVISM
Imagine you are a philosopher/thinker, attending a conference where the following questions arise; Are there universal moral requirements? Are there some morals universally known as wrong? One philosopher, Lenn Goodman argues that there are some certain morals known as simply wrong. Lenn Goodman states there are four moral areas he believes as morally wrong: “(1) genocide, politically induced famine, and germ warfare; (2) terrorism, hostage taking, and child warriors; (3) slavery, polygamy, and incest; and (4) rape and female genital cutting” (Goodman, 2010). The conference leaves you and the other thinkers/philosophers, to answer whether he/she believes if Lenn Goodman is right or not and what challenges it presents to relativism. After there is much debate, there is a possibility that the questions will remain, “Are there universal moral requirements and is there some morals known as universally wrong?” This researcher believes it all depends upon how an individual perceives these questions, in relation to …show more content…
his or her own beliefs.
To answer whether there are universal moral requirements or not, if some morals are universally wrong and whether Goodman or the researcher/thinker is wrong or right is difficult to answer because it is possible to say that neither side is wrong or right because it is relativism.
There is also a possibility that there may or may not be moral requirements, some morals may be known as universally wrong or not because it is possible to conclude that relativism challenges the possibility that moral requirements and whether they are universally known may or may not exist. Because whether they exist or not is one’s own individual belief, their individual cultures beliefs, and challenges
relativism. To begin to understand whether these possibilities exist or not, why it is difficult to take a position for or against the possibilities previously stated and why the questions may remain; the individual must first understand what relativism is. According to Kurt Mosser, “Relativism is the idea that one’s beliefs and values are understood in term of one’s society, culture, or even one’s own individual values” (Mosser, 2010, pg.22). There is two ways to classify moral relativism, individual and cultural moral relativism. Cultural moral relativism, whether certain moral requirements exist or not and right/wrong, good/evil; are relative to a culture that the individual belongs to as a whole. Individual moral relativism is whether an individual believes certain moral requirements exist or not and right/wrong, good/evil; are relative to the individual own beliefs. To understand how a relativist argues, how relativism works, how Goodman’s article challenges relativism and vice versa, and why the researcher believes such possibilities exist as previously stated, we will use one of Goodman’s areas that he believes is simply wrong; polygamy. “The view of an ethical relativist argues that there is no absolute moral standard and that the interpretations of moral claims are the reflection of an individual’s viewpoint” (Mosser, 2010). For example, an individual or culture from one society who practices polygamy in their society, a relativist may say “polygamy is not wrong, in society” and an individual or culture from another society who does not practice polygamy, a relativist may say, “polygamy is wrong, in society” (pgs. 22-24). Therefore, if Goodman believes that “polygamy is morally wrong, in society and is universally known as simply wrong;” Could not another philosopher/thinker who does practice polygamy say “polygamy is morally right in society and it is not universally known as simply wrong?” What about the other areas such as genocide, warfare, slavery, incest, rape, and others that Goodman believes is “simply wrong?” Can it also be argued that these morals are “right in society” relative to the beliefs of other philosophers/thinkers and individuals who practice it and that they are not known universally as simply wrong? When debating whether there are moral requirements or not and if some morals are, known as universally simply wrong one must approach it delicately, with tolerance, and without bias and without imposing one’s own beliefs upon others. Because sometimes the individual is equating their beliefs in objective values in adherence to some standard of conduct that he/she has been exposed to within their lifetime that is relative to their own cultural background; that the culture or individual as a whole strongly disagrees with and is not necessarily true within another individuals culture. So, is Goodman right; are there some things known, as simply wrong; are there moral requirements? He is right in relation to his own beliefs but wrong in relation to others beliefs. Can the researcher of this paper honestly answer or judge that Goodman is right or wrong no, because that would be relative to their own beliefs. Can the researcher say there are moral requirements and that some things are known universally as simply wrong, no, because that would be relative to the researchers beliefs. By exploring all sides of the argument, we can conclude that with relativism no matter what issue of ethics and morals we are debating we can agree to disagree; there is “no universal absolute fact, truth or standard by which to judge who is wrong or right.” This is how and why Goodman’s article and beliefs that some things are “simply wrong” challenges relativism and how the ideas of relativism challenges whether moral requirements exist or not and if they are universally known as wrong. Therefore, the questions still remain; “Are there moral requirements and is there some morals known as universally wrong?” it all depends on how you as an individual perceives these ideas/morals and questions relative to your own beliefs.
References
Goodman, L. E. (2010). Some Moral Minima. The Good Society, 19 (1), 87-94. doi: 10.1353/gso.0.097 Retrieved from @http://muse.jhu.edu/
Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility. San Diego. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from @http://content.ashford.edu/AUSOC120.10.2
Heidi Derflinger
SOC 120
June 13, 2011
ARE THERE UNIVERSAL MORAL REQUIREMENTS AND IS SOME MORALS UNIVERSALLY KNOWN AS WRONG? CHALLENGES TO RELATIVISM
Imagine you are a philosopher/thinker, attending a conference where the following questions arise; Are there universal moral requirements? Are there some morals universally known as wrong? One philosopher, Lenn Goodman argues that there are some certain morals known as simply wrong. Lenn Goodman states there are four moral areas he believes as morally wrong: “(1) genocide, politically induced famine, and germ warfare; (2) terrorism, hostage taking, and child warriors; (3) slavery, polygamy, and incest; and (4) rape and female genital cutting” (Goodman, 2010). The conference leaves you and the other thinkers/philosophers, to answer whether he/she believes if Lenn Goodman is right or not and what challenges it presents to relativism. After there is much debate, there is a possibility that the questions will remain, “Are there universal moral requirements and is there some morals known as universally wrong?” This researcher believes it all depends upon how an individual perceives these questions, in relation to …show more content…
his or her own beliefs.
To answer whether there are universal moral requirements or not, if some morals are universally wrong and whether Goodman or the researcher/thinker is wrong or right is difficult to answer because it is possible to say that neither side is wrong or right because it is relativism.
There is also a possibility that there may or may not be moral requirements, some morals may be known as universally wrong or not because it is possible to conclude that relativism challenges the possibility that moral requirements and whether they are universally known may or may not exist. Because whether they exist or not is one’s own individual belief, their individual cultures beliefs, and challenges
relativism. To begin to understand whether these possibilities exist or not, why it is difficult to take a position for or against the possibilities previously stated and why the questions may remain; the individual must first understand what relativism is. According to Kurt Mosser, “Relativism is the idea that one’s beliefs and values are understood in term of one’s society, culture, or even one’s own individual values” (Mosser, 2010, pg.22). There is two ways to classify moral relativism, individual and cultural moral relativism. Cultural moral relativism, whether certain moral requirements exist or not and right/wrong, good/evil; are relative to a culture that the individual belongs to as a whole. Individual moral relativism is whether an individual believes certain moral requirements exist or not and right/wrong, good/evil; are relative to the individual own beliefs. To understand how a relativist argues, how relativism works, how Goodman’s article challenges relativism and vice versa, and why the researcher believes such possibilities exist as previously stated, we will use one of Goodman’s areas that he believes is simply wrong; polygamy. “The view of an ethical relativist argues that there is no absolute moral standard and that the interpretations of moral claims are the reflection of an individual’s viewpoint” (Mosser, 2010). For example, an individual or culture from one society who practices polygamy in their society, a relativist may say “polygamy is not wrong, in society” and an individual or culture from another society who does not practice polygamy, a relativist may say, “polygamy is wrong, in society” (pgs. 22-24). Therefore, if Goodman believes that “polygamy is morally wrong, in society and is universally known as simply wrong;” Could not another philosopher/thinker who does practice polygamy say “polygamy is morally right in society and it is not universally known as simply wrong?” What about the other areas such as genocide, warfare, slavery, incest, rape, and others that Goodman believes is “simply wrong?” Can it also be argued that these morals are “right in society” relative to the beliefs of other philosophers/thinkers and individuals who practice it and that they are not known universally as simply wrong? When debating whether there are moral requirements or not and if some morals are, known as universally simply wrong one must approach it delicately, with tolerance, and without bias and without imposing one’s own beliefs upon others. Because sometimes the individual is equating their beliefs in objective values in adherence to some standard of conduct that he/she has been exposed to within their lifetime that is relative to their own cultural background; that the culture or individual as a whole strongly disagrees with and is not necessarily true within another individuals culture. So, is Goodman right; are there some things known, as simply wrong; are there moral requirements? He is right in relation to his own beliefs but wrong in relation to others beliefs. Can the researcher of this paper honestly answer or judge that Goodman is right or wrong no, because that would be relative to their own beliefs. Can the researcher say there are moral requirements and that some things are known universally as simply wrong, no, because that would be relative to the researchers beliefs. By exploring all sides of the argument, we can conclude that with relativism no matter what issue of ethics and morals we are debating we can agree to disagree; there is “no universal absolute fact, truth or standard by which to judge who is wrong or right.” This is how and why Goodman’s article and beliefs that some things are “simply wrong” challenges relativism and how the ideas of relativism challenges whether moral requirements exist or not and if they are universally known as wrong. Therefore, the questions still remain; “Are there moral requirements and is there some morals known as universally wrong?” it all depends on how you as an individual perceives these ideas/morals and questions relative to your own beliefs.
References
Goodman, L. E. (2010). Some Moral Minima. The Good Society, 19 (1), 87-94. doi: 10.1353/gso.0.097 Retrieved from @http://muse.jhu.edu/
Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility. San Diego. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from @http://content.ashford.edu/AUSOC120.10.2