In this essay, I will discuss James Rachels’ article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, in which he criticizes the normative cultural relativism argument which is about how different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no single truth to define “truth” or a correct set of moral codes because the idea of right or wrong varies within cultures. Firstly I am going to explain what the cultural relativism argument is about and then present my assessment of Rachels’ critique regarding this argument from careful…
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…
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.…
Ethical relativism says there is no defined right and wrong. This right and wrong is learned from a person’s culture. For example, Shrkeli could have grown up with a father that defrauded customers or stole from investors in his company. Gibbs could have had a grandfather that communicated to him from a young age that he should work to get back at those that hurt him or the people he loves. What might be wrong in Gibb’s culture, might be right in Shrkeli’s, and vice versa.…
ARE THERE UNIVERSAL MORAL REQUIREMENTS AND IS SOME MORALS UNIVERSALLY KNOWN AS WRONG? CHALLENGES TO RELATIVISM…
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 is the thought that the moral beliefs held by individuals is influenced and dependent on the culture in which they live in considers tolerable. Hence, what is considered morally appropriate in a single society perhaps is perceived as immoral in a different society. In actuality they both maybe right as they have distinct creators resulting in different laws, diversity, and possibly religious views of each other. Ruth Benedict defends the theory of moral relativism in her article A Defense of Moral Relativism from The Journal of General Psychology. In contrast, William B. Irvine author of Confronting Relativism feels in a few swift examples people can be talked out of their views on moral…
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…
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…
This world is the abundant soil in which we plant our roots, but the quality and quantity of our growth often falls upon the virtues instilled by our environment. We exist in a society that blossoms with morals based on politics, geography, religion, and countless other variables. In such a society, it is virtually impossible for an entire world to agree on a set of morals to abide by, and therefore our world is saturated with the ideals of moral relativism, whether or not we see it blatantly. Moral relativism is often given the stigma of sprouting impurity or immorality, given the fact that it does not accept that there is a universal moral codex.…
The idea of right and wrong varies from culture to culture. The five tenets of cultural relativism going to depth defining moral codes. Complications and moral questions arise when one culture begins harming another—Nazi genocide, war, imperialism, etc. Geographic boundaries blur in our technologically advanced, globalized world. The most daunting logical challenge presented by cultural relativism is it hinders a society from judging the codes or values of another society and even our own (Lecture 1).…