Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems associated with ethical relativism
Religion influence on society
Problems associated with ethical relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Problems associated with ethical relativism
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
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Cultural relativism is a theory, which entails what a culture, believes is what is correct for that particular culture, each culture has different views on moral issues. For example, abortion is permissible by American culture and is tolerated by the majority of the culture. While, Catholic culture is against abortion, and is not tolerated by those who belong to the culture. Cultural relativism is a theory a lot of individuals obey when it comes to making moral decisions. What their culture believes is instilled over generations, and frequently has an enormous influence since their families with those cultural beliefs have raised them. With these beliefs, certain cultures have different answers for different moral dilemmas and at times, it is difficult to decide on a specific moral issue because the individual may belong to multiple
Ethical relativism is the belief that ethics are not universal and a sense of right from wrong derives from a society’s beliefs and customs. This belief states that there are no absolute morals that are completely right or wrong in every culture. Acts that seem questionable in our society, such as polygamy and incest, are viewed as acceptable in other cultures but are
The consequences of accepting cultural relativism Cultural relativists look at intercultural moral disagreement and argue there is no universally accepted ethical model because all judgements are relative. They believe moral utterances are truth-apt and determined by the majority of the group to which you belong. Cultural relativists claim that we should respect other cultures because our values are not morally superior, they are one set among many. Criticism is disrespectful because you can never completely understand the context of the ethical decisions within another culture. I argue that the consequences of accepting cultural relativism are objectionable.
Cultural Relativism claims that what is morally right and wrong depends on the moral codes of certain cultures. In order for an individual to be moral, he must act in accord with the moral codes of the society to which he belongs. Even though there are great distinctions between these two theories, they both emphasize that moral standard cannot be determined without referring to s... ... middle of paper ... ... t or wrong?
Miner stated that “looking from far and above, from our high places of safety in the developed civilization, it is easy to see all the crudity and irrelevance of magic. But without its power and guidance early man could not have mastered his practical difficulties as he has done, nor could man have advanced to higher stages of civilization” (1956, p.507). This tells us that if we can see and understands everything that happens around us then we can move up but if we don’t then we can never advance in our life. This paper aims to talk about the relation of the body ritual among the Nacirema to the concepts of cultural relativism and cultural invisibility, to post materialism and culture of consumption.
For a long time, people have been questioning what morals are. They have questioned whether morals have any intrinsic value and if they do, are there moral codes that apply to everyone. One of the approaches to this question is moral relativism. Moral Relativism is the idea that moral standards have intrinsic value, but are not universal or objective. Moral truths are based on either cultural of individual beliefs. Moral relativists believe that moral claims can neither be true nor false, therefore are not objective. There are a few arguments that support moral relativism.
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
Moral Objectivism says that there are set moral truths that characterize the way the world should or shouldn’t be. Cultural Relativism claims that to be wrong and that moral judgement is true just because it correctly describes what a society really stands for. The Relativist is incorrect, during this I will construct multiple arguments against Cultural Relativism and why their rebuttal would pose no problem to arguments presented in the realm of Moral Objectivism. Cultural Relativism theory has numerous holes in its theory beginning with that it holds all claims to be true relative to their culture.
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.