Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against ethical relativism
Arguments against ethical relativism
Arguments against ethical relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments against ethical relativism
When it comes to moral dilemmas between cultures, there is a grey area that can sometimes make it difficult to resolve issues surrounding the dilemma. What is morality? How is it possible to know what is morally correct when cultures differ so vastly? To answer these questions, and many more regarding the moral dilemmas in the world, there are theories that have been developed to resolve them. One example is known as Ethical Relativism. Ethical Relativism has been developed on the basis that there is no common set of values that can apply to everyone, as there are an infinite number of cultures that exist and clash with each other. Morality is extremely relative, so the best way to solve a moral dilemma is by analysing the conditions of the specific culture to which it applies. In this paper, I will be discussing and analysing Ethical Relativism and the ways it can be applied to moral issues.
To truly understand the meaning of the the term Ethical Relativism, one must first break down the word itself. The first thing I asked myself was, “what is considered ethical?” Everyone has a set of morals or values that they have shaped for themselves, and it is these principles that guide our perception of how we view something as right or wrong. It is important to remember that what we personally perceive as ‘ethical’ can differ entirely from how another person views it. This is a factor when applying Ethical Relativism. The word ‘relative’ is an adjective used to describe something that is not absolute or independent. It is said that “pure relativism claims that there are no universal moral standards. One can distinguish this extreme position from a principle of moral ‘relativity’ that refers to the way some conditional features of a mo...
... middle of paper ...
...elativism provides is the best way to resolve the moral dilemmas caused by culture clash.
Works Cited
Lockie, Robert. "Relativism And Reflexivity." International Journal Of Philosophical Studies 11.3 (2003): 319. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Knobe, Joshua. "Thought Experiments." Scientific American 305.5 (2011): 56-59. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Reno, R. R. "The Public Square." First Things: A Monthly Journal Of Religion & Public Life 227 (2012): 3-7. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
Vacek, Edward. "Conditions May Apply." Commonweal 138.5 (2011): 14-17. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
Welch, Patrick. "Moral Psychology And The Problem Of Moral Criteria." Journal Of Moral Education 40.4 (2011): 513-526. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.
Many seem to have falling prey to the seduction of ethical relativism, because it plays in to their ethnocentric egoistic moral belief. Individuals such as Pojman are able to critically evaluate this moral principle and not fall victim like his or hers lay counter parts. We will attempt to analyze the theory of ethical relativism, by check the validity of this ethical theory, and evaluate its ethical concepts. With these procedures we will find if it is competent as an ethical principle to adhere by. Then evaluate Louis Pojman critique on ethical relativism and analyze does he successfully refute relativism position. We will also analyze objectivism; the ethical theory which Pojman erects in the place of ethical relativism.
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.
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
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
After analyzing the three most common criteria for choosing a morally significant being I conclude that moral agents decide who is morally significant by looking at the interests of the society as well as the interest of the morally significant being and deciding if the morally significant beings interests are comparable to those of a moral agent. in my opinion, ethical relativism is a good concept because people who live together in a society can produce rational ideas which will eventually lead to ethical decisions and after that, laws.
Each culture has a different solution for a moral issue and there is an often conflict between cultures which leads to intolerance. Also, if the individuals deliberating are a part of two cultures, then an ultimate decision to decide on whether or not to put elderly loved ones in nursing homes will come about with some conflict and differences with the culture they belong to. For example, a high-income Hispanic has the income in order to finance the costs of the nursing home, but their Hispanic culture tells them that it is not right to abandon their family just because they are now older. In this case, one would have to rely on a different method in order to reach a moral decision without the consideration of their cultures values and views involved. Cultural relativism tends to be flawed when more than one culture is involved in deliberation, in order to successfully make a correct moral decision, we will compare cultural relativism's various solutions based on its cultures against utilitarianism's principle of
There are many ethical systems that were created over the years, each created to support curtain people’s beliefs, cultures, and ideologies. Out of all the systems that were presented in this course I believe that relativism and absolutism most aligns with my beliefs. Relativism is the fact that there is no absolute and that what is considered right and wrong varies from person to person and society to society. While absolutism “is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act”.(Philosophy, n.d). I believe that there is a right and a wrong in the world (absolutism) but,
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. ...
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.
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
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.
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.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
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