A’Neiya Brown The article I selected, "The Cost of Relativism," by David Brooks (2015), divides Americans with college educations from those with only a high school education. He draws attention to several horrifying profiles from the latter category, which include problems with drugs, violent crimes, and unwanted pregnancies. Brooks makes the case that nonjudgementalism undermines societal standards and that they should be restored. Although empathy for those without opportunity is crucial, he argues that norms are just as important in these circles as money and laws. On the other hand, it is incorrect to assume that the moral standards of the rich and impoverished are different. Poor people accept society's myths about effort and accountability, feel guilty about their relatives' incarceration, and hope to get married. …show more content…
In the piece, he references Robert Putnam's book Our Kids, which emphasizes the glaring differences between the offspring of wealthy college graduates and those of less fortunate high school graduates. The empirical data confirms what might appear obvious: children from impoverished backgrounds confront more obstacles. He then begins to speak about the moral failures of the disadvantaged. Brooks contends that moral failings, not outside events, are the primary cause of the dysfunction of the American underclass. He laments the lack of fundamental laws and regulations ingrained in daily existence, claiming that society has grown hesitant to declare that some actions are superior to others. According to Brooks, the troubles of the underprivileged can be attributed to their lack of moral bravery and self-control. He then contends that impoverished children would have a greater chance of realizing the American Dream if the latter showed greater virtue in making decisions based on long-term good, self-control, and responsibility. My opinion on relativism in this article is that critics counter that Brooks oversimplifies the intricate
After living in Japan for seventeen years, David Aldwinkle decided to become a Japanese citizen (Weiner & Aldwinkle, 2003). He has immersed himself in the culture, changing his name to Arudou Debito. He has written a book in Japanese about racial discrimination in Japan entitled Japanese Only, teaches at a local university and he even has relinquished his American citizenship. Throughout that time, he has experienced examples of both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.
In “Why So Many Minority Millennials Can’t Get Ahead” The Atlantic author Mel Jones expresses that white families provide their children with financial assistance to get a head in life, or by inheritance, unlike the minority Hispanics and blacks who have to continually make sacrifices that set them back. To begin the article, Jones starts building her credibility with a personal fact. Then she provides credible sources, she cites convincing facts and statistics, and successfully uses pathos in applying her emotional appeals. On the other hand, when nearing the end of her paper, her biased opinions begin to weaken her credibility.
He points out the differences between upper class and lower class family life; upper class have more successful marriages and are better prepared the bear children, and so their children are better off than the lower class children (61-79). But his assumptions of the upper class are broad and could be easily disproven by many families across America, and simply having less money does not make lower class families worse than upper class. Putnam then goes into parenting differences across the classes. He states that higher class parents are more likely to spend more money, time, and energy on their children, and thusly are being parented more positively than the lower class who are likely to spend less (109-134). Again, Putnam’s assumptions, while seemingly proven by data, can still be thought of as too broad to that just because upper class have more to spend on their children, that they provide better parenting. Many lower class parents who might be doing an excellent job parenting, even better than some upper class parents, seem to be discredited or overlooked. Putnam’s last few points about the opportunity gap are reflected in the schools (160-190) and communities (206-226). Simply put, due to where they can afford to live and go to school, upper class kids have far more social support and more
There are always certain social problems that take place in our communities. Some of us may not experience it first hand, but all of us should acknowledge the fact that our greatest social problem is still looming to this day. In Michelle Alexander’s work, Drug War Nightmare: How We Created a Massive Racial Caste System in America, she talks about the social problem of inequality and discrimination in America. From being an African American to being a law professor and experience as a clerk for a Supreme Court justice, it can give a reader a sense of comfort knowing that she knows what she is talking about. Alexander uses several methods of using logical and emotional appeals to the readers so they can get a glimpse of this national issue.
In recent times, it has become very evident that wealth plays a major factor in the judicial system. There have been many cases that display the wealthy being given less of a punishment than the lower classes. In one particular case a teen, Ethan Couch, was driving under the influence after stealing beer from Walmart and he swerved off road, killing four pedestrians. The judge sentenced him to 10 years’ probation; this outraged many people because the usual punishment is a life sentence. Mr. Couch claims he suffers from “Affluenza”, which is a psychological problem that is caused by children being extremely privileged. Ethan Couch should not have received probation because of his family’s status, because he was driving under the influence,
This essay explores personal interpretation of the reading “Savage Inequality” encompassing its distasteful quality and sociological perspectives while identifying my individual experience through commonality. The opening statement in the article Savage Inequalities referenced obvious signs of social inequalities losing its energy as society now view its origin as an everyday norm. Explaining it away as a reflection of the individual’s character is a faultless example of societies reacting to their definition of the situation relatively than the objective situation itself, as Symbolic Interactionism advocates. Contrasting the US educational system reflective in schools found in poor, middle and rich communities appears to be the focal point. A better education is often offered to a select group of privileged children against those with gaps, a problem greater than what is to be expected, however, we are not entirely unaware of its effects.
In her article she points out how social class has become the main gateway to opportunity in America. The widening academic divide means that kids who grow up poor will most likely stay poor and the kids who grow up rich will most likely stay rich. About fifty years ago the main concern about getting a good education relied on your race but now it's about your social class. Researchers are starting to believe that children who come from higher income families tend to do better in school and get higher test scores.
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
Kozol, Jonathan. "Still Separate, Still Unequal." Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. 201-18. Print.
A key thinker, Charles Murray argues for the existence of a separate underclass on the basis of three social phenomena; extra marital births, crime and unemployment. The more prevalent these phenomena are, the larger the underclass. He argues that these individuals are of a separate class, having different social norms and what he classes as deviant behaviours (Murray, 1999). Murray’s key point is that the underclass find themselves in their position through their own choices, that those comprising the underclass are demarcated as such through their behaviour. He believes his evidence shows a quickly growing underclass in the US, and an emer...
Reiman, Jeffrey. 2000. The Rich Gets Richer And the Poor Gets Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C: Allyn & Bacon.
Gilbert Harman lays out his moral relativism theory with “inner judgments”, the statements concerned with “ought”, in Moral Relativism Defended. However, he assumes an important premise of his theory to be true, which is the reason that I will prove the missing premise – that moral relativism is true – in this paper. Moreover, his form of moral relativism with his “four-place predicate ‘Ought(A,D,C,M),’ which relates an agent A, a type of action D, considerations C, and motivating attitudes M,” has brought about both meta-ethical and practical concerns. He argues that these inner judgments are only possible if agent A acknowledges considerations of the circumstance C, invokes motivating attitudes M, and supports the action D with C and M. In
In his essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is an unsatisfactory moral theory because it is based upon an invalid argument, if cultural relativism were true, this would have some troubling and implausible consequences, and there are some moral rules common to all societies. In this short paper, I will argue that moral objectivism is a more satisfactory moral theory than ethical relativism.
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
Nearly all of mankind, at one point or another, spends a lot of time focusing on the question of how one can live a good human life. This question is approached in various ways and a variety of perspectives rise as a result. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Some seek it through the reading of classic, contemporary, theological and philosophical texts while others seek it through experiences and lessons passed down from generations. As a result of this, beliefs on what is morally right and wrong, and if they have some impact on human flourishing, are quite debatable and subjective to ones own perspective. This makes determining morally significant practices or activities actually very difficult.