Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Universal Moral Wrongs and Relativism

Better Essays
1264 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Universal Moral Wrongs and Relativism
Universal Moral Wrongs and Relativism

Lori-Ann Racki
SOC120- Intro to Ethics and Social Responsibility
Dr. Megan Reid
November 12, 2012

Universal Moral Wrongs and Relativism

In the article “Some Moral Minima”, Lenn Goodman argues that there are certain moral wrongs that are universal. He describes four areas he believes are areas of universal moral wrongs in detail. Morality has been an issue that many societies all over the world have been trying to understand and contend with for a very long time. In this paper I will explain how I agree with Goodman on the belief that certain things are and should be considered simply wrong universally. I will also explore the challenges Goodman presents to relativism by using specific examples of these challenges. I will discuss how I think there should be such universal moral requirements and defend these answers. I will then be concluding that although I agree with Goodman’s argument, the theory of relativism makes one reconsider the logical reasoning of moral minima and if it is possible to have universal moral wrongs accepted by all societies and cultures. In Goodman’s argument he confirms four universal and fundamental things that are considered not acceptable and wrong in society- moral minima. The first is genocide which also includes politically induced famine and germ warfare. The second is terrorism which also includes kidnapping and child labor force including using them as child warriors. The third category is polygamy which can encompass slavery and incest. The final category he covers is rape and female genital mutilation (Goodman, 2010, p. 88). I would without a doubt agree and share these same sentiments as Goodman describes. I would say that most of what Goodman has outlined in his arguments would be considered by most civilized societies as acts that deny human beings their rights to live a comfortable life and these acts would be considered wrong and immoral to these societies. Therefore, I would say that Goodman was right and accurate to create this list of moral wrongs that can and do affect many societies. Of course, Goodman’s statements have and will be questioned with critical thought by those who attempt to challenge the facts he has presented. We do live in a world where everything is subject to different types of interpretation, or relativism which as described by Mosser is “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” (2010, chap. 1.8). Therefore, some of Goodman’s beliefs contradict some of the current cultural customs and traditions that have been considered acceptable in some societies. For instance, terrorism, to the ones that are involved with this act it is not wrong because they are doing it in some cases to win a kind of moral pass by risking self-immolation; they are willing to ask of themselves what they take from others. These terrorists think that they are getting offered glory and God’s garden for their act in order to erase their past and simplify their future (Goodman, 2010, p. 89). Another example would be to say that polygamy is universally wrong, would be very controversial because in many countries it is not only accepted but promoted within their culture. In the United States, polygamy is considered wrong and is illegal, but in a village such as Northern Ghana, the village chief has 11 wives and this is acceptable in his culture (Mosser, 2010, chap. 1.8). In this example the perception of right and wrong is dependent on the person contending with it and the cultural beliefs they belief in. Another similar example would be Goodman’s statement that female genital mutilation is simply wrong is subject to different interpretations dependent upon cultures and customs in different societies. In some African societies this act is done to a young child to prepare her for womanhood and is considered an act of virtue. This act is considered a rite of passage that has been deeply entrenched into some of these African customs and societies. Therefore, regarding this act as immoral is very controversial and is subject to a wide range of interpretation depending upon the culture and society trying to interpret it. When considering the examples within this paper, it is clear that there is not a simple answer to whether there should be universal moral requirements. For me, I do believe we should have some universal moral requirements as human beings, but when you study other cultures and societies it can be shocking to find out that what we consider to be wrong in general is practiced in some cultures as normal behavior. As described terrorism would be considered wrong and immoral to many people in the world because the human life is considered sacred, but for those who do this to fulfill what they consider their religious obligation, it is not wrong but expected. Polygamy would also be considered by many as a wrong thing to do because it demoralizes and dehumanizes woman, it makes woman objects of ownership and not an individual human being. Yet for those that live in societies such as the Muslim society and the Northern Ghana village, it is not just accepted as the right thing to do but it can also be encouraged by the society members. Female genital mutilation is another area that many civilized societies would consider wrong and immoral to do because it hampers all sexual satisfaction for the female, and could cause sickness or even death if not done properly. Yet for those born into these African and other societies, they consider this act a rite of passage as well as a way to prevent woman from being promiscuous and/or having extra marital affairs and therefore it is the right thing to do. In conclusion, although I do agree with Goodman that there are certain things that are simply wrong, it is almost impossible to believe that there can be such universal moral requirements or moral minima. Logically I believe that there should be universal moral requirements throughout the world because of the cultural and society beliefs that I have gained throughout my life. Thinking objectively though, I think we need to accept the fact that no one man or woman can stipulate the rules of right and wrong for all cultures and societies throughout the world because of the accepted theory of relativism. If we were to give one human being the right to determine what is universally wrong, and what universal morals should be then we would be giving up all the rights of individual’s to live by their own cultural beliefs. It is human nature to question what is morally right or what is morally wrong, but no one person can really ever be one hundred percent perfect. Therefore, does it make sense for us to accept the ideas and beliefs of what is right or wrong given to us by one person? I don’t believe that we can agree to this either logically or morally. I believe that relativism is ultimately one of the main reasons why universal moral minima will not be able to be accepted by the world as a whole.

References:
Goodman, L. E. (2010). Some Moral Minima. Good Society Journal, 19(1), 87-94. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e88efb93-bef5-4563-96c8-5c37daa7eb0e%40sessionmgr115&vid=4&hid=105

Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUSOC120.10.2/sections/ch00

References: Goodman, L. E. (2010). Some Moral Minima. Good Society Journal, 19(1), 87-94. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e88efb93-bef5-4563-96c8-5c37daa7eb0e%40sessionmgr115&vid=4&hid=105 Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUSOC120.10.2/sections/ch00

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 1251 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. Do you think Goodman is right? Using specific examples, explore the challenges Goodman presents to relativism. Determine whether you think there are such universal moral requirements, and defend your answer in a well-argued three-page paper.…

    • 485 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    D. Lewis disproves the idea that the Moral Law is just a social convention by declaring that one cannot compare another culture’s or era’s moralities as better or worse unless one has a standard morality to compare it to. (12-15)…

    • 930 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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…

    • 123 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Lenn Goodman Essay

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The purpose of this essay is to tell you what I think about an author name Lenn Goodman, the author of ‘”Some Moral Minima”. In this essay I will explain what Lenn states and argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. And I will explain if agree with him or not.…

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    After reading “Some moral minima,” I must say I have to agree with Lenn Goodman’s opinions. He argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. Though they greatly reflect his relativism, I agree on the topics he chose are all wrong in the eyes of another culture’s morals and virtues. We as human beings, and the societies we constitute can be wrong. “Consent is a helpful marker, but neither necessary nor sufficient to legitimacy. Some whose interests are critically affected by our acts have no effectual say in our choices. Principles are principles; no norms delineating concretely, and uncompromisingly, wrong from right” (Goodman, 2010). I agree there should be universal moral requirements…

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 434 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    are right and not all are wrong. In Relativism the idea that one’s beliefs and values are understood interns of one’s society, culture, or even one’s own individual values (Mosser, p.22).. There’s a possibility that some issues are wrong and some are right? In an article "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong like judging…

    • 853 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Philosophy Exam

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Directions: Your exams must be submitted through SafeAssign on Blackboard. Late submissions will be penalized 10 points (one full letter grade) and I will not accept submissions after one week past the due date, which will result in a 0 for the assignment. Plagiarism merits automatic failure for the course.…

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    After reading “Some moral minima,” I must agree with Lenn Goodman’s opinions. Though they reflect, to the extreme, his relativism, I agree the topics he chose are all wrong in the eyes of another culture’s virtues and morals. This is a difficult decision because, even if it is true that no norm can be made absolute unless some other is compromised, unanimity is no proper standard of moral universality. We humans and the societies we constitute can be wrong. “Consent is a helpful marker, but neither necessary nor sufficient to legitimacy. Some whose interests are critically affected by our acts have no effectual say in our choices. Principles are principles; no norms delineating concretely, and uncompromisingly, wrong from right” (Goodman, L.E., 2010).…

    • 1073 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cultural Relativism Essay

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages

    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…

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    References: Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc.…

    • 933 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    References: Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Relativism and Morality

    • 738 Words
    • 3 Pages

    We frequently make moral judgments about the actions of others. We proclaim that things like removing a wallet from someone else’s pocketbook on a crowded train; flying airplanes into the Twin Towers; and intervening (or not) in the Syrian war are wrong. According to Gilbert Harman, such judgments about people’s actions are defective because they lack relativity to the individual’s moral framework. (Harman, 1975) In ‘Some Moral Minima’ Goodman argues that “there are certain things that are simply wrong.” (Goodman, 2010) I contend that right and wrong are subjective, based upon elements of an individual’s belief system, and dependent upon the situation. In this paper, I will discuss theory based arguments to justify my disagreement with Goodman’s contention.…

    • 738 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays