Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A critical analysis of ethical relativism
A critical analysis of ethical relativism
Discuss the problems associated with ethical relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A critical analysis of ethical relativism
Seungbae’s essay on cultural relativism argues that every moral decision one makes is only relevant within the sense of right and wrong depending on their cultural standards. He makes comparisons with cultural ethics as with the laws of motion but does not seem to necessarily relate today’s use of cultural relativism, and it also becomes a sort of backwards continuum in which the relativism that he argues for turns into an absolutist point of view, therefore turning his philosophy into what he is arguing against. He also states that there is a correspondence between Einstein’s laws of relativity with that of an ethical standpoint of relativity. His ideas on what is morally equivalent to right and wrong gives us a standpoint for a relativist view on the nature of reality and the placement of ethics within it. He argues that the ideas of Hitler’s Nazi regime was just as ethical as Mother Teresa’s sermons on peace. This is where his argument begins to fall apart. He argues that Hitler 's Nazi regime was morally correct for his time, but only regards importance of moralistic qualities to the people in …show more content…
This displaces what it means to have culture directly influence your ideals of right and wrong. In his essay, he uses Einstein’s theory of relativity to discuss this point. He argues “ In response, a cultural relativist would again ask us to imagine that a car is travelling at 50km/h with respect to the ground but it is at rest with respect to the passenger. Of the ground and the passenger, which object do we choose as a frame of reference? The answer is obvious. We can choose whatever object we like as long as it suits our need.” This thought that the world and moral reflections of relevance to our lives may as well just be idealism in the sense off our moral obligations of right and
To the Moral Relativist, moral principles are created within cultures and communities, coming from cultural folkways and mores (Gerson Moreno-Riaño, personal communication). These principles are normative only in the culture which created them. Already, the Hippocratic Oath loses its moral weight. For example, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion, Justice Blackmun dismissed the centuries-long Hippocratic tradition as merely a “Pythagorean manifesto,” relegating it to minority status (Cameron, 2001). However, relativism does not end here.
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
A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards that apply to all peoples at all times. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be applied to all peoples at all times. Culture and personal morals cause a person to make certain moral decisions.
In the paper I will discuss how ethics is or is not related to one’s culture or personal beliefs. I will also touch base on relativism as a universal theory and what that means.
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.
However, cultural relativism is not the most satisfactory moral theory. ‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14).
Some of the deficiencies in the way cultural relativism addresses moral problems, according to Holmes; are that they remain impractical, they are subject to change depending on where you live, and that people tolerate the different cultures. As a professional business person, I agree with Holmes analysis. Allowing others perceptions or beliefs to get away with our own personal beliefs would be contradicting ourselves. It is important to stand up for our beliefs, and help educate others on ethical issues. Over time we can make a difference in the world by modeling moral beliefs and ethics.
The meta-ethical theory of relativism claims that there is no universal moral standard that can be used to evaluate the practices and beliefs of other cultures. For the relativist, 'true' only means 'true for my culture', while at the same time, what someone in another culture deems as true, regardless of the contrast, can be equally so (Williams 1976: 34). This means that the criterion for what is deemed acceptable for a given society, is reflective of the views of the prevailing culture. I disagree with this meta-ethical view. At first glance, the theory of relativism might appear as one of respect and tolerance, however, after closer analysis it leads to sharp division between different societies (Midgley 1993: 175), which in an increasingly integrated and globalised world, cannot really hold. A relativist division between cultures can only be managed if we don blinkers and ignore situations that through sound understanding are proven to be wrong. There are claims that are better than others, and if a moral claim is based on incorrect understanding, it should be challenged and shown to be problematic (Dawkins 2004: 17-22).
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
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.
Of the key concepts of this chapter, the one that most stuck out to me is the notion of relativism. Relativism suggests that there are no true universal morals or values. To
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.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.
How do you determine what is right or what is wrong? Personally, I feel that from within ourselves, we know when we have done right and when we have done wrong. This may not stop someone from doing wrong, but, within themselves, I believe that they know they are doing wrong. I believe that someone knows when they have hurt someone else feelings or caused harm to someone. Consequently, I do not make up a culture, which has merits on determining right or wrong. Within this report, ethical relativism will be define and discussed how it relates to right and wrong as well as the corruption that I discussed in the previous assignment.
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.