Ethical relativism says that there is no right or wrong. That is because different people have different moral beliefs and different societies have also different moral beliefs. Every person has its own personalized beliefs about multiple issues. For example I believe that stealing can be accepted under certain circumstances (for instance if the person is hungry and has no money to buy food then he/she should not be blamed for stealing). On the other hand someone else might believe that stealing is an unacceptable act and should be banned no matter what. There are no absolute truths in ethics and what is morally wrong or right varies from person to person and from society to society. Egoism theory is almost identical with ethical relativism …show more content…
According to both theories a rapist act could considered as ethical since for him the sexual need is higher than the other persons rights.
Whether we agree or not though some things seem wrong. Every person has values which are dependent on the culture and the way this person has lived until now. Someone who has been raised in a hostile environment it is possible to adopt values which are not accepted from the majority of people. For example a child who has been raised by an alcoholic parent who abuses it it is possible later on his/her life to adopt the same acts. Furthermore there are some African cultures who accept the female genital mutilation. That is something that in the rest of the world is considered unethical and it is being banned by the law, so according to the African cultures it is right for women to cut their genital organs and on the other hand it is right for us to understand that even though that seems harsh and wrong , this is a different culture and we should be able to understand and accept it. The reason that these people do it includes social acceptance and the fear of social exclusion, religion, the feeling that they should belong into a social
…show more content…
It has to be mentioned that according to this theory a person can have his/her rights violated as long as he/she has a complete knowledge of the consequences. According to our previous example genital manipulation is completely ethical from an African culture and if the women were able to decide and know the consequences of that act could be equally right according to libertarianism as well. Religion, culture, social acceptance are three major values which make people act in a way that if these women were not influenced by them, they might act completely different. So if a woman from that culture was able to decide whether to cut he genital organs or not it is possible to agree with that because of the cultural bias. Both libertarianism and relativism shouldn't be considered as ethical in this
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
The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these arguments.
I would respond to anyone suggesting that tolerating differing opinions weakens the authority of my position by giving the example of stubborn fundamentalists, who by blindly refuse to acknowledge any value in other people’s beliefs really reveal the limitations of their own beliefs insofar as they prevent them from seeing truth and beauty in anything but one’s self.
Moral relativism has two conceptualized frameworks that describe statements. These are Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism. Cognitivism in a nutshell is merely the opposite of non-cognitivism. Relatively, it is the certainty that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are apt for truth and falsity. Moral judgments generally dwell in this arena due to the element that people incline to make moral judgments a large part in their decision-making and anything which is non-existent in moral values tends to be discarded. The spectrum that Cognitivism belongs to is so broad that it encompasses the milieus of moral realism, moral subjectivism and error theory. Hillary Putnam in his book, Ethics without ontology states that ethical (including mathematical) sentences can be factual and unprejudiced
Who decides what is ethical and what is moral? There are no standards of conduct that everyone in the world agrees upon. There are different religions, cultures and ethnicities in this world and because of that; there will most likely never be a day where everyone finds everything that someone else does to be ethical or moral. Since there can never be a universal standard for morality and ethical behavior for people everywhere, we must stop judging people by looking through the lenses of our culture or society . We must judge someone and his actions by the standards of his culture or society. An action one person considers being justifiable behavior may not be the same case for someone else. When cultures and religions cross paths that do
The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has often been viewed as a rite of passage for women in various countries within Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia. However, due to societal norms and pressures, whether it based in culture or religion, forces women to partake in a practice that has serious health risks and takes away the rights of women who believe they have no other choice. The Universal Declaration of Human rights are applicable to all member states including most of the countries that still practice FGM. However, despite claiming that the human rights set forth would be observed as obligated in terms of their memberships, FGM violates numerous rights and freedoms that claim to be recognized but, are not known to the people. These rights are neglected, and frequently go unacknowledged within communities because of denied access to media or information. Nonetheless whether it is intentional or a direct result of the poverty levels within these countries these are rights that the people deserve to know they have. If women were exposed to various forms of media and knew of their rights, FGM would not be so highly practiced. Female Genital Mutilation is a flagrant violation of one’s human rights.
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.
Ethical theories are theories that assigns fundamental role to self-interest. This fundamental role can be explanatory or justificatory. Rational egoism states that any act is rational if and only if it serves self-interest. It doesn’t say anything about moral acts, making it a non-moral theory.
Moral relativists believe that no one has the right to judge another individuals choice, decisions, or lifestyle because however they choose to live is right for them. In addition everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs and to impose those beliefs on another individual is wrong. At first glance moral relativism may appear ideal in allowing for individual freedom. After all why shouldn’t each individual be entitled to their own idea of moral values and why should others force their beliefs on anyone else. “American philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), tells us, what is right is only what the individual thinks is right. There is no higher court of appeals, no higher, universal, or absolute moral standard.” (pg 121) Moral relativism means if does not feel wrong than it must be right.
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.
Ethical theories are a way of finding solutions to ethical dilemmas using moral reasoning or moral character. The overall classification of ethical theories involves finding a resolution to ethical problems that are not necessarily answered by laws or principles already in place but that achieve justice and allow for individual rights. There are many different ethical theories and each takes a different approach as to the process in which they find a resolution. Ethical actions are those that increase prosperity, but ethics in business is not only focused on actions, it can also involve consequences of actions and a person’s own moral character.