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).
Culture Relativism: putting aside any judgment or beliefs against a culture different from one’s own culture. In the narrators experience he is able to collect his thoughts and understand that their way of life is different from his own and that he must not judge them in order to truly understand them.
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
Cultural relativism is defined as the belief that no one culture is superior to another morally, politically, etc., and that all “normal” human behavior is entirely relative, depending on the cultural
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
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
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
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.
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.
Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position. It relieves individuals of the burden of serious critical reasoning about morality, and it
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.
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,
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.
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
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)