Analysis Of Weigh Prinz's Argument For Moral Relativism

Weigh Prinz’s argument for moral relativism against the anti-relativist arguments put by James Rachel in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” Explain both philosophers cases. Which argument is stronger in your view and why? Defend your answer. From a young age, people question whether they are morally right about things all around them. Have our morals been taught to us from a young age? Do they truly exist are are they a norm imposed to people by society? Does morality really exist or is it just a creation of our imagination? The Oxford dictionary defines morality as the principles concerning a person being able to distinguish between right and wrong and good and bad behavior. Still, the meaning is not as clear as it seems. In the arguments

Prinz wrote, “Moral education begins from the start, as parents correct these antisocial behaviors, and they usually do so by conditioning children’s emotions” (Prinz). According to Prinz when parents punished their kids or reward them when they are babies they are infact teaching them morals and to distinguish the good from the bad. He goes as far as to saying they are “essential” to understanding morality because, “whether something is wrong by introspecting our feelings: if an action makes us feel bad, we conclude that it is wrong...judgments can be shifted by simply altering their emotional states” (Prinz). In order to prove the importance of this theory Prinz alludes to psychopaths. Psychopaths are individuals who lack empathy and morals and “If morals are emotionally based, than people who lack strong emotions should be blind to the moral domain… [like psychopaths] ... suffer from profound emotional deficits...This suggests that emotions are necessary for making moral judgments” (Prinz). He doesn’t used the lack of emotions psychopaths have in order to say that reasoning is not important to morality. Instead, he believes that with reasoning a person can understand that a person 's morality and value are influenced by their

In some western societies, it is okay for one to let a homeless person die from hunger and cold weather while in others, that is seen as something that is morally wrong. Still, even when one knows something is morally incorrect, one would still act the same way because it’s the most convenient and effective decision at the time. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII was one of the options the U.S. had. However, because it was in the best interest of the U.S., it would have decreased the amount of casualties for the U.S. and Allies, the decision to drop the bomb was made. Many of the moral decisions made by people might not right, however, as explained by both Rachel and Prinz they are the best option for people at the