Cultural Relativism And Ethical Objectivism/Universalism

1180 Words3 Pages

Cultural Relativism and Ethical Objectivism/Universalism are two approaches to morality. There are benefits and issues with either approach. However, after close examination and evaluation, it is clear that the reasoning behind Ethical Objectivism is more sound. Cultural Relativists believe that each society is entitled to their own opinion of what is morally right and wrong . Cultural Relativism is the theory that all moral standards are relative to one’s own culture and society; therefore, universal ethical codes do not exist . The basis of Cultural Relativism on these two principles is unconvincing. Ethical Objectivism is the theory that there are a small number of moral values that exist for everyone . These universal values include, but are not limited to: the prevention and limitation of war, genocide, and prohibition of unreasonable harm . Ethical Objectivists hold true to the fact that these core values must be obeyed by all cultures and societies at all times . Ethical Objectivists promote what is best for society as a whole and work towards equal and reasonable treatment of all, which is why Ethical Objectivism is a philosophically more defensible position. First and foremost, for a society to peacefully exist there …show more content…

In the case of female circumcision and genital mutilation, the harm principle is objected because members of the societies who are imposing this practice upon its women believe there is a religious root that prevents them from terminating the practice . Since this ritual is most commonly practiced in Muslim societies, if it did in fact have religious roots, then the Koran would require it. However, female circumcision and genital mutilation “is not required by the Koran”, it is simply suggested . The societies who criticize the harm principle have not accurately interpreted what is stated in the Koran, so their criticism of the harm principle is

Open Document