Throughout his essay, Professor Beckwith critiques the arguments primarily used to support moral relativism from cultural and individual differences. Beckwith states that there are four main problems with moral relativism: relativism does not follow from disagreement, disagreement counts against moral relativism, disagreement is overrated, and absurd consequences follow from moral relativism. In Beckwith’s first point, he states that moral relativism does follow disagreement and in the end, moral disagreements prove nothing. Beckwith gives an example of a hypothetical conversation with a Neo-Nazi and their disagreements over how to treat others. Just because the Neo-Nazi believes minorities should not be treated the same as white Americans, …show more content…
Beckwith described many situations that would have us believe that certain aspects of other cultures have radically different moral values. The most predominant example he uses from philosopher James Rachels, agreeing with his claim he used over Eskimo culture and infanticide. In the Eskimo culture, it is a social and moral norm to kill a child to ensure the family’s survival. When looking at it from an ethnocentric view, many see that as morally wrong, but what Beckwith argues is that if we dig deeper and gain more knowledge of particular facts on these cultures that differences in cultures may not be too far off from our own. So from a morally objective standpoint, Beckwith believes that disagreements are overrated due to the lack of factual information and biases over issues. Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
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
(1) Schafer, Karl. "Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 602-20. Web.
A person, no matter where they live or what kind of history they have, always has and always will come across someone who does not believe the same way that they do. This is plainly seen in Phil Washburn’s Philosophical Dilemmas and as a result the main source of information will stem from this text concerning morals. Philosophers are most known for their work of arguing about morals and what is wrong or right however, what laymen do not understand is that they do not focus on the question of moral but rather whether or not the judgment of the morals of others is right or wrong. It is here that the idea of relativists and absolutists is born and men are challenged to take a side. According to the essays in Washburn’s text, a relativist is someone who believes in Moral Relativism. This person believes that morality is dependent upon a culture and morals themselves are defined as “a set of rules” that the people of this particular culture abide by. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the absolutist who believes that regardless of the culture, there are some morals—not a “set of rules” but the difference between right and wrong— that apply to all people. Relativists and absolutists prove to be polar opposites when it comes to their stance on morality and after analyzing both the idea of an absolutist is the most plausible.
Gilbert Harman lays out his moral relativism theory with “inner judgments”, the statements concerned with “ought”, in Moral Relativism Defended. However, he assumes an important premise of his theory to be true, which is the reason that I will prove the missing premise – that moral relativism is true – in this paper. Moreover, his form of moral relativism with his “four-place predicate ‘Ought(A,D,C,M),’ which relates an agent A, a type of action D, considerations C, and motivating attitudes M,” has brought about both meta-ethical and practical concerns. He argues that these inner judgments are only possible if agent A acknowledges considerations of the circumstance C, invokes motivating attitudes M, and supports the action D with C and M. In
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.
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
To his credit, Vaughn acknowledges that “diversity of moral judgements among cultures is a reality” (15). He also rightly states that just because such diversity exists does not mean that there is no objective moral truth. I can also find no issue with Vaughn’s assertion that such disagreements “may simply indicate that there is an objective fact of the matter that someone (or everyone) is wrong about” (15). However, neither does it logically follow that there is an objective moral truth – I will return to this issue in a moment. Vaughn then goes on make a similar argument against cultural relativism as he did subjective relativism, “if a culture genuinely approves of an action, then there can be no question about the action’s moral rightness” (16). As with his assertion that a murder’s moral acceptance of his crime implies its moral rightness, this claim confuses cultural relativism’s larger point, which is that morality is an agreed upon cultural convention, not an objective law like those governing like gravity or evolution. Outside cultures would not be wrong to question another culture’s moral rightness. They would simply be doing so according to their own moral standard instead of some objective one. Vaughn then goes onto say “cultural relativism implies there cannot be any such thing as moral progress” (16). The question arises, why are we assuming that there must be moral progress? His following argument is that social reformers cannot exist in cultural relativism. This claim arises from an overly narrow definition of a culture. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. may have been wrong according to the conservative white culture of his time, he was right according to the African American culture of his time. Cultural relativism does not deny that cultural trends can shift over time, so the modern prevalence of his morality does not undermine the theory. Cultural relativism
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.
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
Rachels says that “different cultures have different moral codes” and I believe that is true what might be okay in one culture could be absolutely immoral in another. His reference to what Daruis notice between the Greeks and the Callatians can show us that each culture has their own method of dealing with a situation. As well as the Eskimos who had multiple wife and use the method of infanticide. This being unheard of, immoral to the people of America but since the time of Herodotus they have notice “the idea that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture.” I think this concept is right however, I haven’t actually seen a culture as different as my, I have seen some small differences and I know some culture have big differences to mine but I haven’t encounter them. I...
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
Moral relativism which is our basic point of discussion is defined by the English dictionary as the different perspective of seeing issues either the wrong way or admitting to it, or someone’s conscience or suggestion and not what rules or the law says should be done (Encarta Dictionary of North America).
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...