Theories Of Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is a view on morality stating that there are no universally accepted moral principles. Morality varies from one culture to another and no society has the right to impose their view of morality on other societies. Ethical relativism can be summed up to mean that morals are derived from what is culturally acceptable in any given society.
ER is made up of two theses. The first is the diversity thesis, which simply says that moral practices are diverse across cultures. Ruth Benedict defends this theory by using homosexuality as an example. She explains how homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged in many cultures throughout history, like ancient Greece, but denounced in others. More evidence for the diversity thesis can
Glaucon introduces a mythical ring that turns its wearer invisible. Glaucon says that every person, even the seemingly most moral, would use the ring to his or her advantage even at the detriment of others. His argument is based on the fact that the only reason people don’t live fully unjust lives now is fear of repercussions. Under the stipulation that one can never be caught, the fear vanishes one becomes immoral. Socrates responds by asking if injustice really does pay. His point is that by one’s own definition of success, one may or may not use the ring. For example if success is defined by a man as being scrupulous, he wouldn’t use the ring because ultimately it doesn’t lead to happiness for him. In contrast, the man who defines success by wealth would use the ring. Socrates says that to do injustice is to scar ones “soul,” which is equivalent to the modern word “character.” Both sides of the ring argument have merit. For the majority of the population I believe Glaucon is right, they would use the ring. However, some define happiness differently, and for them the ring is of no
Simply, according to DCT, morally right means commanded by God and morally wrong means forbidden by God. This theory is highly criticized and many philosophers would say it has been refuted for thousands of years. The main criticism comes from Socrates and Euthyphro. The question is whether what is right is right because God says so (DCT) or does God say it’s right because he sees that its right (theory of natural law). Option one is quickly dismissed by Euthyphro because it implies quite a bit of arbitrariness. For instance, in the very beginning all actions were morally equal until God starting commanding and prohibiting certain ones. If God loving something makes it right, what reason is there for God wanting us to do right? If God commanded adultery, adultery would be morally right and obligatory. Option two means that there is a standard of morals independent from God’s own will. This contradicts the divine command theory’s basic component that commanded by God is right and prohibited by God is