In A Defense of Moral Relativism, Ruth Benedict argues that normal behavior varies from society to society; therefore, what’s morally right for one society can be morally wrong for another. To support this argument, Benedict mentions how certain cultures practice what’s “abnormal” to us without any difficulty. She goes further to give examples of traits that are abnormal to us such as, “sadism or delusions grandeur or of persecution” (Benedict, 1934, p.1) and concludes saying that “these abnormal function at ease and with honor, and apparently without danger or difficulty to the society” (Benedict, 1934, p.1). Benedict also uses examples that are deemed immoral to many societies such as homosexuality and murder to illustrate her argument. In ancient Greek times, homosexuality was widely accepted and was not seen as an abnormal or immoral aspect of this society. “Plato’s Republic is, of course, the most convincing statement of such a reading of homosexuality. It is presented as one of the major means to the good life, and it was generally so regarded in Greece at that time” (p.1). In this sense, we see how what is morally acceptable is defined by a particular society based on their practices and their ideologies.…
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…
Cultural Relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Some believe that morality is relative to culture, but some believe that argument is invalid. Some also argue that there is such a thing as moral isolationism.…
A moral relativist is someone who views that ethical standard, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. In regards to Pojman beliefs, I do agree that most American students tend to be moral relativists. It is because of the culture that we grew up in. Morality depends on the amount of social acceptance it gets to morally good or bad. For example, he stated that individuals said they were relativists contended in the same polls that abortion is only right if the mother is in danger or that the capital punishment is wrong, but this is not always the case. Given certain circumstance, many individuals will do what he/she feels is morally right. If a mother to be feels the need to abort an unborn child so her life can be easier, she will do so. The attraction of relativism depends on, if an individual feels what they are doing in a certain situation is worth the…
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.…
Moral Relativism is what determines whether the action or conduct is right or wrong. This article states how from a moral absolutist standpoint, some things are always right, while some things are always wrong no matter how much one tries to rationalize them. At the same time, this article defines moral relativism as the belief that conflicting moral beliefs are true. What this means is that what you think is morally right, may not be morally right for someone else. Basically relativism replaces the search for absolute truth. Moral relativism and moral absolutism are means of deriving the morality of the character from The Road. They are tools to use to judge the characters actions, if they can be considered morally correct or morally unethical.…
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…
What is the concept of relativist morality: Moral relativism is an opposing perspective from the objective ways of a moral absolutist such as Plato , whose moral standards are fixed regardless of the context. The whole concept of absolutism is universal and deontological; therefore it is unchanging. Whereas Moral relativism is teleological: the outcome of the action is not taken into consideration, meaning that moral relativism possesses moral truth that is dependent on place, culture, time and religion. Furthermore it is subjective in a way that our overall conclusion of an ethical situation is based on what we feel is the most suitable moral judgement. Relativism indicates that there is no one true morality, there should not be one solution…
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.…
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…
In regards to genocide, famine, and germ warfare, each of these is simply a version of murder – specifically, premeditated mass murder. I agree with Goodman that any murder is wrong because it destroys a human subject. Our one basic right as human beings is the right to be alive, the right to live. Goodman distinguishes between wholesale murder and individual murder, not just because of its grand scale but also because of its willful neglect of individual recognition of the persons murdered. Any acts such as Hitler’s holocaust must be condemned on all measures.…
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.…