Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical relativism esay
The case for moral relativism
The case for moral relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical relativism esay
Relativism comes from the word “Relative” which means measured, judgment, clever or a meaning or assessment that can only be recognized and may change depending with circumstance or background. It can also be used in a way of showing that something is true to a particular degree when it is being compared with other things (Cambridge Advanced Dictionary)
There are different types of relativism and can be grouped or categorized into different stages namely: Moral, Cultural Just to mention but a few.
Moral relativism which is our basic point of discussion is defined by the English dictionary as the different perspective of seeing issues either the wrong way or admitting to it, or someone’s conscience or suggestion and not what rules or the law says should be done (Encarta Dictionary of North America).
Ralph Reed on the other hand defines relativist as “people who don't believe in truth or even in the concepts of right and wrong”. Moral relativism can also be defined as a situation or scenario whereby one sees things or issues in a different perspective. They are a group of people who do not believe or trust what they are told or what the law says.
Moral relativist always think that their thoughts are always right and are to be acceptable and are very intolerant of others, like if a moral relativist finds a child being corrected by the parent, they will condemn this action not considering that the parent is only trying to train the child morally or correcting the child on the right way and way of carrying out activities (Irvine 45). In as much as many people would like to be critical, many avoid it because if one is too critical, they seem to be left alone in the society, for no one is willing to be around one who does not find...
... middle of paper ...
...arent and the lecturers as well, with this I am supporting the motion that children are to be brought up morally until they are old enough to decide what is just and fair or differentiate from their moral etiquette, just as the Bible puts it that “we should guide the child in the direction and they will never leave”.(Bible)
I do not agree to the other scenario about Mr Smith wanting to cut down a rain forest in turn to see what it feels like to do so, because Mr Smith being an old man who is advanced in age he has gone through all the ups and downs in life and also conversant with his wrong from right, he is old enough to know what is just and fair. If everybody was to think like Mr. Smith, our environment will be affected thus making Planet Earth uninhabitable. Though such happenings occur in some areas, this has led to the reduction of Ozone layer (Lewis 11).
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
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
Ethical relativism is a perspective that emphasizes on people's different standards of evaluating acts as good or bad. These standard beliefs are true in their particular society or circumstances, and the beliefs are not necessarily example of a basic moral values. Ethical relativism also takes a position that there are no moral right and wrongs. Right and wrongs are justified based on the particular social norms. Martin Luther King's moral critique against racial injustice is reliable with the idea of ethical relativism. Dr. King took a moral judgment that institutionalized racism is unacceptable in America about the nature of ethical truth. King's moral views about the discrimination of blacks in the United States were inappropriate. His
According to Tännsjö (2007), we all have our own moral universes that consists of moral codes that are relevant only to our universe. In Wong’s account of Velleman, (2016), he states that in a relativist world we are each on our own moral islands, independent of everyone else’s rules and judgments. Moral relativism also includes the acceptance of both contradicting moralities possibly being correct (Tännsjö, 2007. Hugly & Sayward, 1985). For example, if one person from one moral universe believes that something is right, but another one believes that this same thing is wrong, moral relativism states that within their own contexts and beliefs this action could be justified as both wrong and right (Tännsjö, 2007). Moral relativism essentially argues that morality is formed through every individual’s own perception and shares very little between moral universes or moral
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.
Cultural relativism is a theory, which entails what a culture, believes is what is correct for that particular culture, each culture has different views on moral issues. For example, abortion is permissible by American culture and is tolerated by the majority of the culture. While, Catholic culture is against abortion, and is not tolerated by those who belong to the culture. Cultural relativism is a theory a lot of individuals obey when it comes to making moral decisions. What their culture believes is instilled over generations, and frequently has an enormous influence since their families with those cultural beliefs have raised them. With these beliefs, certain cultures have different answers for different moral dilemmas and at times, it is difficult to decide on a specific moral issue because the individual may belong to multiple
In simple words, relativism is the thought that all beliefs and self-truths are just an opinion that cannot be proven true or false. It is simply the thought that your beliefs are no greater or lesser than mine, we are equal. Knowledge is determined by specific qualities of the observer including age, ethnicity, gender, and cultural conditioning. But is relativism a reliable source when looking into life as a whole. For example, based on the thoughts of relativism Jesus and Osama Bin Laden are equal. I believe that relativism isn’t a reliable argument when talking about issues in the world today. Now, in terms of relativism being introduced to society I believe that a majority of people would adopt the concept automatically, while some would stick to their previous beliefs. Some might already believe and live by this concept while others might just adopt this concept because they don’t like the thought of conflict, then of course there are those that stick to their beliefs no matter what. I feel like relativism is appealing to some people because they just like the thought of everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that they can believe what they want. It is said that America is land of the free and home of the brave, that all people have the right to free speech. But what if you “know” that what people believe is wrong and what you believe is right who’s to say which option is true and which is false? This is why relativism is one of the most heavily debated topics today.
“Subjective relativism says that action X is right for Ann if she approves of it yet wrong for Greg if he disapproves of it. (Vaughn, 2013, p. 23) This moral perspective is foolproof, based on the premise that individuals can each have their own views and beliefs yet both perspectives are without judgement. Therefore, if I state that cases of abortion that are a product of rape are morally acceptable then one cannot argue with me. This theory is solely based on personal perspectives of the subject, there is no debating legal rights of the mother or the fetus in question. This theory is can be best summed up by simply stating “That is your
Bernard Williams explores the concept of relativism in his paper “Interlude: Relativism”. In this paper, Williams explains how the concept of relativism is a wildly unreasonable theory to have existed in philosophy. Relativism is defined as moral reasons depending on a group, culture, or society. Williams opposes to this theory by examining the concept of relativism and stating reasons to support his argument. However, this argument fails to provide every aspect of the theory; therefore, I will provide two reasons resisting Williams argument.
In the attempt to explain morality, two prominent theories exist- moral relativism and moral objectivism. Morality in a sense is difficult to explain, both theories attempt to shed a bit of light in way to break down its complexity. Moral Relativism argues in the view that morality exists only due to the fact that it is relative, or in respect to, cultural or individual beliefs. In a sense, it is up to the people to determine what is right and wrong. On the other hand, moral objectivism views that morality is not parallel, or relative, to one 's beliefs. That it is independent and not subjective to one 's interpretations, thus it is objective and universal moral facts exist. Louis. P. Pojman, an American philosopher and professor,
While moral relativism may seem appealing due to the fact that if and individuals behavior feels right to them than it is right for them. When applying this position of morals to everyday situations it revealed to be a fairy tale in search of individualism. Unless everyone lives in a bubble where they have no interaction with anyone else moral relativism is just not pragmatic. Consider if you were mugged, during the altercation, you were beaten, injured and your personal belongings were stolen. After applying moral relativism to this situation, the conclusion is that the person who mugged you did absolutely nothing wrong. The person you feel may have violated you as an individual felt that their actions were right. Why would this person submit you to this behavior? This not a question that a moral relativist would ask because they have no right to influence or question another’s moral values. In addition t...
The strongest argument against ethical relativism is that if you accept the idea of it, you must accept that the minority of a culture believing in an idea is morally wrong, and the majority is right. Benedict’s theory states that anything can be normal or abnormal in a culture. Whatever is considered abnormal is ethically wrong and vice versa. There are big problems with this theory. According to this, people who fought for civil rights and women’s suffrage were “wrong” just because they were in the minority at the time. Then once their support for their beliefs grew past 50%, they were now morally right. This also applies to people who believed in slavery or concentration camps. If they were in the majority of their culture, it makes them
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.
Critical Reflection 6 At the beginning of Anita Ho’s article she gives examples of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism means nobody should have the right to determine if what someone does is moral or immoral. Nobody has the right to tell others what they believe is right or wrong. People have their own customs, and nobody should be able to tell them they are not doing something correctly.
Conceptual relativism is concerned with truth and knowledge and belongs specifically with the ability of the human mind to construct different realities, people have different versions of realities but there is no one reality as is the same with truth there is no one absolute truth there are only truths. (Lazar 1998)Many authors have described the nature of this in their own languages and this has bought about many different views of conceptual relativism. It was Daniel Little’s belief that conceptual relativism was concerned with the fact that as the world is separated into so many different countries, cultures, religions and beliefs. It would not be possible to only have one theory on the structure of everything inside the world, for all individuals think differently, how can one theory be more plausible than another. (Lazar 1998) Peter Winch had a more radical view and argued that Science had absolutely nothing to do with explanations on what existed. He stated that human beings are more than just physical objects and that if human action was not being understood from the inside, how could the social sciences understand human action at all. He went on to say that the majority of sociology was not in fact a science it was a masked type of philosophy. Winch’s claims against the social sciences caused problems and some ethnomethodological sociologists changed the way they studied society and developed a non scientific route. (Lock 2010)However rationalists such as Popper reject the idea of relativism as he believed that unless all individuals shared the same framework of basic knowledge, there could never be agreements made. (Benton 2001)