Morality

566 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Norms and values in society

Morality Is morality relative? Ruth Benedict and James Rachels have opposing views on this conroversial question. Benedict, "a foremost American anthropologist who taught at Columbia University" (Pojman 370) believes that morality is relative to one's culture and that one's behavior which is deemed moral or immoral is dependent upon cultural norms. Her argument is as such: 1. Different cultures have radically different moral codes 2. There are no objective moral principles i.e. all moral principles are culturally relative Rachels, "a professor at the University of Alabama" (Pojman 375) disagrees with Benedict and believes that morality is not relative. Furthermore he holds Benedicts "Cultural differences argument" to be invalid. One who sides with Bendedict would also agree with a quote from her book "Patterns of Culture" that "morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits." This quote seems logical, simply stated it means cultures approve of rituals and beliefs that the entire society shares. Society defines what is moral at a certain point in time. Morality is adaptive and can shange over time, however it is still dependent upon its culture to decide whether it is accepted or not accepted. For example, in the early twentieth century, pre-marital sex was considered a huge sin and looked down upon with disgrace. A person's entire character was jeopordized if they had participated in pre-marital sex. Today however, although pre-marital sex is not considered virtuous, society does not cast aside those who have sex before marriage. It is considered normal as a matter of fact to have several partners before marriage, that is , if you even decide to get married (ano... ... middle of paper ... ...erent cultures have radically different moral codes" is wrong because the differences are not radical, and there are universal truths. One could point out that all societies have an inate tendency to care for their young and other young in general, or that murder is not accepted in any culture. One could also argue that using the prusit of truth as an example will show that morality is not relative. Instead, universal morality exists, but not all cultres are aware of it. Rachels gives the example that some societies believe thayt the earth is flat, however we bleieve that the earth is round. Rachels uses this to show that the underlying fact is simply that they disagree. He further states "there is no reason to thing that if the world is round everyone must know it. Similarly , there is no reason to thing that if there is moral truth everyone must know it".

Show More
Related

  • Solutions to Problems in the Film Do the Right Thing

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    Yes, there can be different moral rules for different ethnic and cultural groups. Every culture should be allowed to follow their own set of moral rules to a certain extent .

    Read More

  • The Debate Between Ruth Benedict And James Rachels

    1002 Words  | 3 Pages

    Today's topic is on whether morality is completely relative or whether there are any moral absolutes. We as individuals and as a culture have certain sets of morals and ideals that we stand by. Whether or not certain morals carry over to various cultures or if morals are unique to that culture is left up to debate between Ruth Benedict and James Rachels. Today I will try to show that James Rachels argument is logically stronger than Ruth Benedict's argument

    Read More

  • Ruth Benedict In Defense Of Moral Relativism Summary

    853 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Ruth Benedict’s argument In Defense of Moral Relativism he argues that morals are relative to culture. Morals are a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Every person has morals, and what they deem to be morally right or wrong can vary. Benedict argues that morals change based on the culture that the person is in. Culture is the behavior, beliefs, and other characteristics that belong to a certain group or society. According to Benedict, each culture has their own set of morals, and each person in the group gains morals based on the morals of the group as a whole. The group creates a general “norm” for what is considered right or wrong. A subject that is deemed wrong in one culture

    Read More

  • Mackie And Harman's Argument Analysis

    1606 Words  | 4 Pages

    L. Mackie gives has a very compelling belief as to why moral facts don’t exist. He provides two arguments to prove his point: argument of relativity and queerness. Since moral facts don’t exist and we cannot think about moral facts in an objective sense. The argument from relativity states that there can be no objective moral facts because there are inconsistencies in moral beliefs around the world (Mackie p. 783-784, 2016). This is a compelling argument because there are different cultures that can have different moral beliefs that can even sometimes conflict with each other. We can consider a hypothetical society which does not believe in eating meat and considers it immoral. On the other hand we have societies that are fine with eating meat. Here we have a conflicting moral belief between two societies. So we possibly cannot tack on a truth value to eating meat is morally bad because some people believe it is bad while others don’t. This as Mackie states does not necessarily mean that social values dictate morality. We can have some universal facts like doing what is good or what brings about the greatest amount of good but they are only certain instances and the above examples of different societies disprove the existence of moral facts. So there are instances which can prove that moral facts don’t exist like how different societies can have conflicting instances of morality. So moral facts don’t

    Read More

  • Burn A Faded Gun In The House Next Door

    1374 Words  | 3 Pages

    Each culture on earth has its own traditions, customs, and even habits that are modeled after the previous zeitgeist. This evolution through the generations however brings about change and metamorphosis as to what a culture perceives as normal, where one generation to the next has noticeable differences in their cultural norm. These changes are often small from one generation to the next, but have astronomical differences on a grander scale. An example of this can be seen from one cultural zeitgeist to the next in our perception of moralistic right and wrong. Two thousand years ago, pedophilia was a commonplace occurrence, while today it a despicable crime. The action of this has not changed but the cultural perception has. What happened during these thousands of

    Read More

  • Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    The cultural differences argument goes like this; 'Different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no one correct set of moral claims, only those that conform to the major set of beliefs within the given culture'.

    Read More

  • Comparing Pojman's and Benedict's Views on Cultural Relativism

    430 Words  | 1 Pages

    Pojman’s objections to relativism center upon the existence of common human nature and experience, and that “…it is possible to communicate cross-culturally and find that we agree on many of the important things in life” (Pojman 181). This correlates to the idea of common moral concepts among different cultures and societies. In this common experience of “needs and interests” (Pojman 185), it stands to reason that certain moral practices will better serve needs and interests than others. This contrasts greatly with Benedict’s all cultures are equal proposal. Benedict makes a valid argument that people develop moral codes as a result of their culture. There is no right or wrong way to develop a society, the only tried and true method is trial

    Read More

  • Observing People's Behavior at a Fitness Center

    1156 Words  | 3 Pages

    Lets start by understanding that cultures are a melting pot of people’s beliefs, language, behaviors, values, material objects, and norms. Norms are written and non-written “expectations of behavior” that govern a certain location, place, or culture (26). These norms also vary from culture to culture meaning what is a norm in the U.S may not be a norm in India. For example, a norm in America would be tipping a waiter after a meal. Another would be acknowledging someone as you walk past him or her, typically done at work or in a public place. In all, norms are folkways, mores, taboos, and written laws that are an established standard of one’s behavior.

    Read More

  • Consequences Of Taking Cultural Realism

    728 Words  | 2 Pages

    That morality is not relative, Rachel argues, “ Claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish”. She argues that we do not need morality because of culture differences and values based on where we are. Also talks about what can be learned from relativism and states that because of it morality is not needed and know what to do based on their moral codes.

    Read More

  • moral or immorral

    455 Words  | 1 Pages

     Morality is based on spiritual and personal beliefs and on accepted standards for the respect of others.

    Read More

  • Morality is Relative

    634 Words  | 2 Pages

    The objections I have to Rachels' argument against morality being relative are pretty much limited to the way he applies his examples. He applies them in a way to win the support of the reader, but looking further into them, they don't seem to be accurately applied or in some cases even seem hypocritical to those ideas of cultural relativism that he does support. There are some glaring problems I have with Rachels' argument, otherwise he does bring up some good points about what he thinks is right regarding cultural relativism, and several of those examples that he does use are illustrated in a way to be understood by someone as simple as myself.

    Read More

  • Ruth Benedict Ethical Relativism

    912 Words  | 2 Pages

    Over her years of research, anthropologist Ruth Benedict has found countless evidence that proves ethics are relative, while philosopher W.T. Stace, argues against her stance and says that ethics are not relative but absolute. Benedict believes in moral or ethical relativism; ethical relativism is relative to culture at any particular age, region, and society. Then on the other hand, Stace believes in moral or ethical absolutism, which means there is only one eternally true and valid moral code for all human beings. He also goes on to say, “They are in themselves either right or wrong. What we have to do is to discover which they are.”(94.) Both sides feel very strongly about their views and have a lot to say to back up their ideas.

    Read More

  • Ethical Relativism and Cultural Relativism

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.

    Read More

  • What Determines Right & Wrong?

    928 Words  | 2 Pages

    Moral practices are different in many cultures. There are cultural practices that you would expect to be immoral all over the world, but it is not. For example, I do not understand how anyone would feel it is normal to eat love ones who have died. In some cultures, this is normal behavior. It is normal for others to burn the dead. In my culture, we bury the dead. Because I feel it is inhuman for someone to eat their loves after they have died does not give me the right to tell them they are wrong and I am right. This is the means behind ethical relativism. T...

    Read More

  • Criticism Of Cultural Relativism

    900 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Morality

Open Document