Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on moral vs cultural relativism
Strength of the divine command theory
Strength of the divine command theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on moral vs cultural relativism
Morality in itself can be categorized as, the human approach to define what is correct and incorrect about our actions and thoughts, and what is right or wrong about our actions and just being ourselves. The book “Elements of Moral Philosophy” has to say that the reason we study moral philosophy is to get a clear understanding of morality and Socrates himself stated that “ how we ought to live-and why”. The following are the main moral’s of philosophy and arguments trying to show that they disapprove of the Minimum Conception of Morality.
The first moral of philosophy being Cultural relativism, says that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other.
…show more content…
Accordingly, there is no such thing as “objective” right or wrong. The theory applies to all moral matters, no matter how controversial that issue may be An example being An Ethical Subjectivist would argue that the statement "Stalin was evil" expresses a strong dislike for the sorts of things that Stalin did, but it does not follow that it is true or false that Stalin was in fact evil. I would disagree with this statement not because I don’t agree with the facts about Stalin, but just because I have a different attitude towards the topic. Subjectivism implies that our moral judgments are outside the realms of criticism. It does account for moral truth or moral falsehood. There is no room for reason in ethics. Therefore, it fails to meet the Minimum Conception of Morality. Whereas Ethical subjectivism was truly based on personal opinions and feeling, The Divine command theory portrays God as the supreme lawmaker and giver. In order to live as one should, in accordance with one’s religion, they must abide by God’s laws. The nature of right and wrong is known as the Divine Command Theory. This theory has many “attractive features. It immediately solves the old problem of the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids it. Christian’s Jew’s and Muslims think that God has given us a set of rules to follow, but they are not forced. Gods commands are morally required for us and the one’s God forbids us to do are wrong and not
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
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.
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
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. ...
Morality is making the distinction between doing what is beneficial or doing what is detrimental. Everything in this world is connected and depends on a sense of morality. “We care for people, billions of organisms, and myriads of habitats they support, because we now appreciate that we draw our life from each other, and that we are all mutually implicated in each other’s fate” (Wirzba 88). Our lives are ultimately connected with the state and well-being of other individuals. We discern the fate of ourselves when we care about the fate of others. If we choose to disregard the needs of our settings, we are living immorally in regard to our surroundings and ourselves.
It can be quite hard to get an exact definition of morals, since there isn’t one. There is a basic statement regarding what morals are, “represents a set of standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.” So therefore the main universal understanding of morals is to uphold certain standards and not break rules that are given or made. The first of three theories of morals is Moral Realism. Moral realism is the theory that there exists a universal set of moral rules that every person should understand. Moral realists believe that God has created a set of moral rules for us to follow. The approaches to the moral realism theory include the Devine Command Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Consequentialism. One of the approaches to Moral Realism, Devine Command Theory is the idea that “an act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.” The second moral theory is Moral Nonrealism, which yes, sounds like the first one, but it is the opposite. Moral nonrealism is the theory that there is not any real determination between what is right and what is wrong, and humans aren’t able to obtain the knowledge of determining what is right and wrong. Some approaches to moral nonrealism are; Moral Skepticism, and Moral Nihilism. Moral Skeptics “do not
Morality is based on spiritual and personal beliefs and on accepted standards for the respect of others.
Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes,
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.
The argument from objectivity of morality also advocates the Divine Command Theory. It states that moral standards are objective, separate from all culture’s judgment. It also states that they’re universal. Thus, morality can only be objective and universal if it depends on the commands of God. In response, morality is solely dependent on God’s commands.
In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act. Finally, referring to James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I will solidify my argument further using his theory that
Ethics show you how to live a good life. In order to understand the ultimate good life one must evaluate different ethical theories to find one that fits them best. The Moral Point of View provides a structure for what a good theory should encompass. My position of the Moral Point of View is that it is essential; the theory from class that best approaches how to live a good life is the one that follows it closely.
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
...the concept of what should we do or what we ought to do. Ethics is design to help one receive the life they want and live it with purpose. In certain situations it’s unclear as to consider it moral or immoral as ethics comes to play alongside morality. Some would argue the concept of what can be define as moral as immoral in conjunction with ethics by means of feelings, religion, law, culture, and science. Although they prove good standings they cannot be accounted for as those rationales are more so that of opinion that are altered daily depending of that of the individual. For this reason any act can be considered moral as we can use descriptive education depicting that of ethics, in which we live a life seeking how things should be and that it depends on the individual. So who is to say what’s right and what’s wrong. If it exists in the universe it can be moral.
Many theories attempt to explain ethical standards and how certain cultures perceive these standards or practices. When explaining certain ethical standards Cultural Relativism is an failed illogical theory for many reasons. Cultural Relativism is a theory that attempts to explain an idea that no culture is superior to any other culture and that all people’s perspectives are biased by their own cultural background. Generally, it is the opinion that all cultures are of equal value and equality to each other, therefore, there is no one culture is inferior to any other.