I would consider myself a Moral Objectivist. I would consider my self a objectivist for many reason, For example Moral Relativism defines that an all beliefs and customs and ethics are relative to an individuals within his or her own social context.
First, Moral Objectivism implies that what is wrong or right does not necessarily depend on what an individual thinks is right or wrong( ). To many people they think that “ Different cultures have different moral codes”(). To many that’s the key understanding to morality, However in ethics some say it is in actuality a myth. The difference between right or wrong is strictly a matter of human opinion not culture. There are many probable reasons why most people view moral decisions objectively. For Example, When talking about cultural differences there are many fundamental ideas such as “Different cultures have different moral codes“. Many also argue that there is no objective “Truth” in morality, right and wrong are only matters of an opinion which is different from culture to culture().
Second, The Cultural Relativism Theory views that all beliefs and customs are relative to the individual within his or her own social context, The theory is about the nature of morality(). For example, It was believed that the Greeks thought it was wrong to eat the dead, However the Callatians believed it was okay to eat the dead. In that case no one can really judge the Greeks or the Callatians it is not right nor is it wrong to eat the dead that is matter of opinion(). These distinct arguments are examples of one fundamental idea(). There is no objective truth and it is a simple point of logic we all live in different socities and we all have different cultural backgrounds. When one culture ...
... middle of paper ...
...other customs or beliefs based on what is morally right or wrong because there is no correct answer and we have to think of what we as individuals think is right or wrong based on our opinions but on our social standings. We need to keep and open mind at all times and not be to quick to judged others or otherwise it would be cause us to become very judgmental toward others because we have been taught to accept what is acceptable and reject what is unacceptable in our society(). Cultural Relativism displays the prejudices of our society Our feelings may not always tell us the truth that is why we need to be more open about discovering what the truth is not matter what it can be(). We need to avoid all ignorance at all costs and be respectful of one another at all times. And you do not need to accept the theory to accept these rules that we must obey and respect.
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
The difference between absolutism and objectivism is that where objectivists believe that there are universal moral principles in which people of all ethical backgrounds and cultures have the validity to follow, absolutists believe that there are underlying values within these beliefs that strictly cannot ever be over-ridden, violated or broken under any circumstances (REF). Furthermore, while absolutists believe in this notion that moral principles are ‘exception-less’, objectivists strongly follow the notion that life is situational and that we as humans have to adapt accordingly to the variables that arise, take them into account, and then make a decision accordingly (REF). Within this introduction of variables applicable to any situation, it is therefore believed that each moral principle must be weighed against each other to produce the best possible outcome, and this is where the overriding of values occurs in an objectivists view, and where an absolutist would disregard these circumstances.
Even though there are many arguments against these theories, there are many points that support it. There is no such thing as ethical objectivism because as said in “The argument of Relativity”, every society around the world has different beliefs and ways of acting. Not everyone shares the same opinion. As said in “The Argument of Queerness”, we would not able to understand these objective values because we would need to have some type of power that is not in our ordinary accounts of sensory perception so this means we are incapable of understanding them. We also know that we make decisions not only based on our moral values but on the experiences we have been through time. In the end, I still believe Mackie is correct and there are no objective
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
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
Moral objectivity is the rejection of enthnocentricism, or belief that one’s culture is superior than others. In short, one’s cultural beliefs cannot fundamentally be legitimate morals in the sense that they do not have to follow the “objective” morals. For example, Pojman supports a view stating that morals are universal, that they are "objective" in regard to it being that it doesn 't matter about what a culture defines as moral or immoral, that certain morals are undebatable. Such as for example, torturing children for fun is wrong. This is objectively true no matter what the world says otherwise; another example being that some still think the Earth is flat. In other words, moral objectivism states that "moral standards are true or correct for everybody"2. Thus moral objectivists tend to look at morals as absolutes. Pojman argued that humans are social creatures and that as humans, we did not want to live as "hermits"(first edition, 33), thus certain agreements must be made in order to attain community. Explaining further that agreements are "human nature" and that agreements are at the "core" of morality, as well as stating that to "flourish as a person" we agree to these moral codes in order to maintain harmony and peace. Morals in an evolutionary perspective, allow humans to survive. Such as for example, murder or killing other humans deemed as immoral or wrong. Pojman gives the example of serial murder Ted Bundy, who in his mind believed that killing people was O.K because it made him happy. He believed that killing and raping others is completely fine because those were his morals and what he personally believed in. This disturbs the social harmony and a moral objectivist would beg the question of whether it is right to murder and rape others because one or culture views it as acceptable. Same question can be asked about Hitler, as Pojman did, does it make it acceptable and justifiable that because Hitler and the
In our text book the book describes moral absolution as “a rational nature, and reason can discover the right action in every situation by following an appropriate exceptionalness principle“(Pojman, p. 71), while moral objectivism is describes as “valid rules of actions should generally adhere to but that, in cases of moral conflict, may override by another moral principle “(Pojman, p. 76). The major difference between the two is that with moral absolution one must adhere to one’s moral situation like “don’t tell a lie” in any situation, while in moral objectivism one could see the moral issues that a situation brings up and one could choose the better of the two or the lesser of two evils.
I personally believe this action to be unethical. It is down-playing the true significance of the crimes that are being committed. It is a means of taking a short cut in order to deal with an issue. It is our duty as officers to come up with legitimate strategies to help with the crime problem. As a police officer and within the police officer precinct, it is our duty to thoroughly do our jobs and record the true nature of the crimes. If the statistics of the crimes do not accurately measure where it is that we need to be putting our resources, it would be a great disservice to these communities. While I personally believe that this is an unethical action to be taken, I would say that amongst most of the ethical frameworks, this is also unethically permissible, except for one which I will describe in the last paragraph. I don't think that lying is an acceptable ethical decision to be making within a business, and while obtaining a career as a public service servant or law enforcement agent.
Cultural relativism is defined as the belief that no one culture is superior to another morally, politically, etc., and that all “normal” human behavior is entirely relative, depending on the cultural
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
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.
Morals are the principles that we use to decipher right from wrong, or good from bad. Many people seem to have different morals that they live by because of the different things they believe are acceptable or good to do. This issue brings up the question, are morals unique to each individual person, or is there a standard of true morals for every person to live by? Matt Lawrence’s book, Like a Splinter in Your Mind, says that opposing sides to that question can be split into two broad categories called moral objectivism and moral non-objectivism. The idea that there is a true basic standard of morality for everyone is called moral objectivism. Moral non-objectivism is the view that no morals are objectively true, meaning either morals don’t
The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.