Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical relativism in today's cultures
Ethical relativism in today's cultures
Moral relativism and cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical relativism in today's cultures
As we discussed chapter 3, I learned about Ethical Relativism, meta-ethics, cultural relativism, objective relativism, and subjective relativism. This topic is very difficult for me to come to an agreement based on someone’s cultural belief and practices. For starters, meta-ethics is a branch of ethics that deals with the meaning of moral principles and/or statements and their “truth” status in the world. Meta-ethics focuses on the religious beliefs and cultural practices and whether is right or wrong or good and bad. “Meta-ethical relativism holds that there are no universal or objective norms (or that human beings cannot know such objective values)” pg. 31. In other words, this deals with the meaning of moral principles/statements and their …show more content…
It is possible that some cultures are wrong regardless of the fact that cultures and people vary in their moral judgments. Objectivism insists that while moral principles are objectively true and universally binding, there are exceptions due to context or application. Objectivism is when I have my ethical views, and you have yours and neither of my views nor yours are better than any other. When talking about objectivism the cons are that one is encouraged not to make any sacrifices, because people will become dependent on your good will. But the ends do not prove or justify the means, so if you 're hurting yourself in any way you are committing an act of evil, and the victim will become dependent on your …show more content…
In my opinion its considered moral, it’s a decision that is not enforced unlike honor killing or female circumcision. In the article it states “People might also be interested to know that although the initial 3-6 months are no doubt painful for a girl, once the lip has healed (and the Mursi have very good plant based ointments to heal these wounds), there is no pain involved (unlike Chinese foot binding and FGC, when the pain continues and can harm the quality of life in very significant ways).” I believe this is morally right because there is no pain involve. The Mursi believe that it is up one’s decision, if they decide not to do it there is no penalty
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
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
It’s possible no culture has found these “better” ways, the advantage to relativism is that we can appreciate the attempt. The flipside is that relativism tends to view other cultures in comparison to the relativist’s native culture, defining ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ as seen through that culture instead of the studied culture. Pojman’s objectivism offers a step back from the situation, allowing the questions, “Does this moral concept or action better the society or the individual?” and “Do these values and practices promote fulfillment of human needs and interests?” Recognition of cultural diversity in moral norms, beliefs, and practices is valuable in our modern ‘global village.’ In this context, some principles of moral relativism are valid: people are products of their society and culture, there are always social deviants, and ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ behaviors are perceived in every culture. However, the existence of these ‘truths’ do not prove the theory of moral relativism. Pojman refines these observed qualities of human cultures and connects them to a common set of human needs and
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
This is a difficult question to answer because there is not a right answer. The research of abnormal behavior supports both the universal and the cultural relativist approach.
Ethics are not universal throughout the world due to the many different persons and cultures that have different moral beliefs and ethics. However, within an area where the culture is similar and the majority of the people in society believe in the same morals and beliefs, all of their ethics can be said to be relative. Rather than believing if an action is good or bad, morals from different cultures and settings are viewed as being either accepted or not accepted. As long as an action is viewed as being accepted then that is a moral of that culture. An example of a moral being accepted in a culture when other cultures do not accept it is killing. There are some cultures that believe in the concept of suicide and/or homicide, while other
With this in mind, cultural relativism does have limits. As each culture develops its personal moral system, one can push the principle of cultural relativism to extremes. For example, taking an extreme relativist position, one cannot oppose any culturally-accepted forms of homicide, such as infanticide (Textbook 301). Therefore, the moral complexity of taking a cultural relativist stance on various issues has been increasingly
Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgement can only goes as far a one person’s standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. What I hope to prove in my thesis statement are inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism.
Nearly all of mankind, at one point or another, spends a lot of time focusing on the question of how one can live a good human life. This question is approached in various ways and a variety of perspectives rise as a result. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Some seek it through the reading of classic, contemporary, theological and philosophical texts while others seek it through experiences and lessons passed down from generations. As a result of this, beliefs on what is morally right and wrong, and if they have some impact on human flourishing, are quite debatable and subjective to ones own perspective. This makes determining morally significant practices or activities actually very difficult.
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
Someone might reject moral objectivism because different cultures have different morals. For example: some cultures believe that the worst criminals deserve the death penalty, but some cultures believe that know one should be put to death for a crime, but moral objectivism is a better moral theory than ethical relativism because in agreeing with cultural relativism, you are believing that cultures decide between right and wrong. Cultural relativism implies that only the cultures can decide for individuals what is right and what is wrong. With moral objectivism, believing what is right and what is wrong is valid or true for everyone. Believing in cultural relativism means you can also not judge other cultures of what they think is right or wrong. Vaughn and Rachels give examples and evidence to support moral objectivism and I believe it is the better moral theory. I stated that one might be against objectivism because every culture has their own morals, and some cultures do not believe every individual should have the power to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Some cultures believe in relativism, where only they can decide their morals and can also not judge other cultures of their morals. Every one is going to judge different cultures morals, no matter what. Everyone thinks differently and
In the Cultural Relativism point of view, “…values and morality are culture specific and not the result of universal reason. They’re what a community believes, and that’s it” (Schmitz, 2012, p.154). The vision of ethics is defined by the local culture, and the traditional ethical theories don't apply to them; this means, the common sense is not what is right or what is wrong, but what is the need to survive.
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...
It is flawed in the sense that it underestimates similarities and overestimates differences between cultures that prove that there is a universal standard for ethics among all human beings when we understand context and rules of morality that are consistent through all cultures. We are all able to judge each other’s cultures and our own cultures because that is how moral progress is accomplished. If there is moral progress and a universal standard of ethics than cultural relativism cannot
Many theories attempt to explain ethical standards and how certain cultures perceive these standards or practices. When explaining certain ethical standards Cultural Relativism is an failed illogical theory for many reasons. Cultural Relativism is a theory that attempts to explain an idea that no culture is superior to any other culture and that all people’s perspectives are biased by their own cultural background. Generally, it is the opinion that all cultures are of equal value and equality to each other, therefore, there is no one culture is inferior to any other.