Flavia Neyra
In “Trying Out One’s New Sword” by Mary Midgley, she expresses her argument in opposition to theory of relativism. Relativism is a theory that states a person has moral reasons which depend on person’s group, culture or society. According to Midgley, this theory is referred to as “moral isolationism”. Midgley brings up intriguing ideas and uses rhetorical questions to support her argument. Midgley’s argument analyses three main points that she emphasizes and I will provide two counter ideas that oppose her argument.
Moral isolationism is a theory that believes the world is divided separately into sealed units of societies and that moral judgments can only be applied to the culture of origin. This theory states that we must respect unfamiliar cultures by not forming any opinions at all. Midgley believes that this theory is illogical and that you need to know a culture before judging it at all. Respecting an unfamiliar culture without knowing anything about that foreign culture is impossible. According to Midgley, respecting a culture requires a favorable judgment that is made by understanding. For example, Midgley mentions the ancient Japanese practice of a samurai trying out his new sword by slicing a wayfarer. While we might not live in Japan we are supposed to praise the samurai for his actions. A samurai must do such actions to honor himself as a samurai and not let down his emperor. Even with limited understanding of the Japanese, other cultures can still respect the samurai and praise him. Knowing a little about a culture can give us a good idea about what the culture is and develop a favorable judgment.
Another point that Midgley mentions is that if we are not able to judge any other culture, then we certa...
... middle of paper ...
...that norms to one culture were not always moral norms. Every culture has different norms that accidentally becomes a norm to that culture. With this in mind, there is no such thing as a universal norm. Therefore, if there is no universal norm it contradicts Midgley’s idea about cultures not being separate. Cultures are isolated because if they weren’t then there would be a universal norm.
Upon reflection, Midgley believes that one must know about one’s culture and about others before judging them. Also judging a culture is crucial in order to morally develop as a culture. Every culture is also mixed with different types of other cultures making isolation impossible. Opposing to these views, I believe that cultural criticism actually creates more arguments than helps solve them. Also, I believe that our cultures are isolated but not having a universal norm.
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.
In the introduction, Blackburn constructs a clear antithesis between absolutism and relativism, and illustrates their focuses with colloquial words like “bullshitting” and “fetish”. Although this way of expressing ideas is kind of rude, it makes audiences easily understand the ongoing conflict between these two ideas and intrigue them to read more. The rest of the article continues such fun style of writing until the part where the author begins to point out the problems within the prevalent idea, relativism. The author’s reasoning against relativism starts with an imaginary debate where pros and cons are discussing the validity of banning fox hunting. Then the author introduces a relativist, Rosie, who tells the pros and cons that “The truth you are holding is relative; what you believe is true may not be true for the other.” Since this point, the author’s reasoning begins to become intense. First, he argues that what Rosie suggests doesn’t contribute to the debate because with or without her intervention, the debate will remain controversial. Then he digs deeper by suggesting that Rosie may want to emphasize toleration is essential yet such claim is actually absolute, which contradicts the relativist value that Rosie believes. Finally, Blackburn states that in order to avoid such paradox, Rosie may assert that “You have your truth; I have mine”, yet it still doesn’t contribute anything to the
Midgley’s first argument is regarding the moral isolation, which is the barrier past down on us when we stop criticizing other cultures based on the fact that we don’t understand them and in that case can’t judge them. Midgley responds by giving an example regarding Japanese samurais. A samurai’s sword had to be tried out for the sword to work properly, and for it to work appropriately it must be able to cut through someone in a single blow, if not than it would bring shame to the samurai’s honor, upset his ancestors and even let down the emperor. Tests were needed to make sure that the sword worked properly, and all civilians were used to test the sword, and as long as
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.
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.
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
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.
Starting from the late 19th to early 20th century, modernist writing has become widely spread as a way for people to express ideas and feelings that are written in a more isolationist form. The modernist literary movement was driven by the desire to transform writing from the classic views of the time period and begin to express the newly developed emotions that were going on at the time. Both The Guest by Albert Camus and The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, are two modernist texts that strongly exhibit the feelings of emotional isolation and alienation throughout each book. In each story, the protagonist undergoes a sense of desolation, and although both characters experience the same sense of remoteness, each are isolated in different ways.
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.
We experience it as no less than mockery of our cultures” (Munson, 625). I understand
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.
Renteln, A.D. ‘Relativism and the Search for Human Rights’, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 90, No. 1. March, 1988, pp. 56-72. Available from:
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
In the end, what we learn from this article is very realistic and logical. Furthermore, it is supported with real-life examples. Culture is ordinary, each individual has it, and it is both individual and common. It’s a result of both traditional values and an individual effort. Therefore, trying to fit it into certain sharp-edged models would be wrong.