Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morality is universal or relative
Genealogy Of Morality
Youngsters and moral values
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morality is universal or relative
As adolescents, our values and sense of right and wrong are influenced and developed by the culture we are exposed to. Because we are in constant contact with a particular culture, we develop our values and sense of right and wrong as seen fit for that time and place. In addition, we are also often taught to condemn ethnocentrism, thinking that one’s views, values, or standards are superior to others. Rather than being ethnocentric, we are taught to be open minded to the values and practices of cultures different from ours. We are not to judge by our morals or views because they vary from culture to culture. In other words, our values and sense of right and wrong are subjective. Relativism is just a matter of subjective opinion. It asserts …show more content…
Also, imagine the acceptance of murder. The success and survival of that society would be at risk. The youth would be left to fend for themselves. With no leadership, everyone would be free to do as they please, including murdering whoever they wish because of differences or disagreements. With no value in friendship, there would be animosity and discord between individuals. This society would ultimately face the risk of killing each other off. “Disjunction in values places people at odds with their daily practices and encourages selfishness and personal gain rather than care for others” (Napier). The existence of universally shared values: friendship, leadership, well being of the youth, and condemnation of murder, thus allow a society to flourish. Present say societies have flourished because of these universally shared values. Therefore, to say that there are no universal moral values shared by human societies, exaggerates cultural …show more content…
Relativism, however, is not an adequate source in forming our values and sense of right and wrong. Relativism is subjective, therefore making moral values susceptible to change because they are ultimately up to someone’s subjective opinion. As a result moral values are constantly changing to appropriately fit the time and place. Our moral values we hold now are not completely the same moral values others before us held. The various cultures and social movements constantly influence one’s values and sense of right and wrong. This is why, for example, more people are coming to accept gay marriage. Social movements are influencing a change in the moral value of gay marriage. Ultimately, future generations are going to hold a different moral value concerning gay marriage due to the changes occurring now in our moral value concerning gay marriage. This is not to say however that everyone will come to accept gay marriage, as the Catholic Church plays a big part in influencing moral values. Just as relativism exaggerates cultural diversity, it claims no morals are absolute. However, the universal moral values, such as friendship, courage, and justice, shared between societies counters the relativists claim that morals are absolute. The universally shared values bind various cultures together and allow them to succeed as well as to continue to influence one
To his credit, Vaughn acknowledges that “diversity of moral judgements among cultures is a reality” (15). He also rightly states that just because such diversity exists does not mean that there is no objective moral truth. I can also find no issue with Vaughn’s assertion that such disagreements “may simply indicate that there is an objective fact of the matter that someone (or everyone) is wrong about” (15). However, neither does it logically follow that there is an objective moral truth – I will return to this issue in a moment. Vaughn then goes on make a similar argument against cultural relativism as he did subjective relativism, “if a culture genuinely approves of an action, then there can be no question about the action’s moral rightness” (16). As with his assertion that a murder’s moral acceptance of his crime implies its moral rightness, this claim confuses cultural relativism’s larger point, which is that morality is an agreed upon cultural convention, not an objective law like those governing like gravity or evolution. Outside cultures would not be wrong to question another culture’s moral rightness. They would simply be doing so according to their own moral standard instead of some objective one. Vaughn then goes onto say “cultural relativism implies there cannot be any such thing as moral progress” (16). The question arises, why are we assuming that there must be moral progress? His following argument is that social reformers cannot exist in cultural relativism. This claim arises from an overly narrow definition of a culture. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. may have been wrong according to the conservative white culture of his time, he was right according to the African American culture of his time. Cultural relativism does not deny that cultural trends can shift over time, so the modern prevalence of his morality does not undermine the theory. Cultural relativism
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
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
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. ...
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.
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
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.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.
Cultural relativism is the term given to the idea that there are no universal moral values that apply to all mankind and that every culture has its own set of moral principles. This set of principles varies from culture to culture, and it is extremely rare, if not totally impossible, to find a moral principle that is followed by all cultures. For example, the idea of arranged marriages, which is the concept of two families marrying their son and daughter even though they don’t particularly know each other, is fairly common in Indian culture but non-existent in American culture. Cultural relativism is the opposite of moral objectivism, which states that there is a set of universal moral values that should be followed by all people of all cultures
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
...re is no room for ethical relativism in a cooperative, high-functioning diverse society. If society becomes blind to other point of views that may be better than the beliefs it already holds, then it becomes more difficult for that society to progress. And if society is not moving forward then it is moving backward.
Cultural relativism is a moral theory. Moral theories are designed to help us figure out what actions are right and wrong. In the theory of cultural relativism, the theory holds that there is no universal morality that is recognized amongst all cultures. In an article on this theory, James Rachel’s states several characteristics of cultural relativism, each distinguished as either supporting, or neglecting the theory itself: 1. Different societies have different moral codes; 2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another; 3. The moral code of our own society has no special status, it is merely one among many; 4. There is no “ universal truth” in ethics; 5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; 6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards practices of other cultures.
ABSTRACT: I attempt to look into the issue of the ranks of values comprehensively and progressively. Anti-values can be classified into the following six categories by ascending order: (1) the act of destroying the earth-of annihilating humankind and all other living organisms; (2) the act of mass killing of people by initiating a war or committing treason; (3) the act of murdering or causing death to a human being; (4) the act of damaging the body of a human being; (5) the act of greatly harming society; (6) all other crimes not covered by the above. Higher values can be classified into the following five categories in descending rank: (1) absolute values such as absolute truth, absolute goodness, absolute beauty and absolute holiness; (2) the act of contributing to the development and happiness of humankind; (3) the act of contributing to the nation or the state; (4) the act of contributing to the regional society; (5) the act of cultivating oneself and managing one's family well. Generally, people tend to pursue happiness more eagerly than goodness, but because goodness is the higher value than happiness, we ought to pursue goodness more eagerly. In helping people to get the right sense of values and to internalize it, education and enlightenment of citizens based on the guidance of conscience rather than compulsion will be highly effective.