Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics chapter 6 cultural relativism
The case against cultural relativism
The case against cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics chapter 6 cultural relativism
Metaethical theory addresses whether or not there are correct answers to ethical issues. Metaethical theory also discusses how these answers apply to the world. There are two major branches of metaethical theory, objectivism and non-objectivism. These theories have advantages as well as disadvantages to using them. I will be discussing these branches and the theories they contain, the advantages and disadvantages, and which branch appeals most to me.
Objectivism states that there are correct answers to ethical issues. Objectivists also believe that these answers apply to everyone at every time. So when someone states that ethics is objective what they really mean is that it applies to everyone, no matter what. For example, If someone threw a newborn baby into a vat of acid just for fun; we would like to say that this action is not permissible no matter
…show more content…
However; that is also the issue with this view. The issue with this theory is we cannot say that some action is inherently wrong. We would like to say that certain acts, like throwing an infant into a vat of acid for fun for example, are not permissible no matter where you are. In the case of adopting cultural relativism, we wouldn’t be able to say this because if the person’s culture allowed it and said that it was morally permissible then they would be in the right. Similarly in the case of adopting subjectivism, as long as the person committing the action thought this action was morally permissible then that statement could not be made. If we adopted ethical nihilism, statements like this would not be able to have any truth value. Since ethical nihilism states that there are no correct answers whatsoever we could not state that something was wrong and give it a truth factor. In order to do this there must be some correct alternative but nihilism states there is no such
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
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
There are many ethical systems that were created over the years, each created to support curtain people’s beliefs, cultures, and ideologies. Out of all the systems that were presented in this course I believe that relativism and absolutism most aligns with my beliefs. Relativism is the fact that there is no absolute and that what is considered right and wrong varies from person to person and society to society. While absolutism “is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act”.(Philosophy, n.d). I believe that there is a right and a wrong in the world (absolutism) but,
“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
However, cultural relativism is not the most satisfactory moral theory. ‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14).
Meta ethics refers to a category of analytic philosophy that focuses on the social or professional position, foundation and extent of the moral values, characteristics and words. There are a number of theories related to the Meta ethics that are designed to support various types of moral thinking and actions(Jacobs, 2002). Meta ethics have been considered as an abstract and impressionistic way of thinking, therefore, Meta ethics is placed second to the normative theory of philosophy. Meta ethics have been part of western philosophy since the beginning of philosophy; however, in the beginning of the 20thcentury, Meta ethics grabbed the attention of a great audience(Jacobs, 2002). The basic question of the Meta ethics is how to find what is right
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...
As a function, ethics is a philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct, and of the rules and principles it should govern. As a system, ethics are a social, religious, or civil code of behavior considered correct by a particular group, profession, or individual. As an instrument, ethics provide perspective regarding the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, or potential outcomes. Ethical decision-making can include many types, including deontological (duty), consequentialism (including utilitarianism), and virtue ethics. Additionally, subsets of relativism, objectivism, and pluralism seek to understand the impact of moral diversity on a human level. Although distinct differences separate these ethical systems, organizations
It is flawed in the sense that it underestimates similarities and overestimates differences between cultures that prove that there is a universal standard for ethics among all human beings when we understand context and rules of morality that are consistent through all cultures. We are all able to judge each other’s cultures and our own cultures because that is how moral progress is accomplished. If there is moral progress and a universal standard of ethics than cultural relativism cannot
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
We can also define metaethics as the take a look at of the beginning and that means of ethical principles. Whilst as compared to normative ethics and carried out ethics, the sphere of metaethics is the least precisely described location of ethical philosophy. It covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology. Troubles, though, are outstanding: (1) metaphysical troubles concerning whether or not morality exists independently of people, and (2) mental issues concerning the underlying intellectual foundation of our moral judgments and
Many theories attempt to explain ethical standards and how certain cultures perceive these standards or practices. When explaining certain ethical standards Cultural Relativism is an failed illogical theory for many reasons. Cultural Relativism is a theory that attempts to explain an idea that no culture is superior to any other culture and that all people’s perspectives are biased by their own cultural background. Generally, it is the opinion that all cultures are of equal value and equality to each other, therefore, there is no one culture is inferior to any other.
Philosopher David Hume divided the term “ethics” into three distinctive areas; meta-ethics, which focuses on the language used when talking about ethical issues. The general approach to this area of ethics is, it explores the nature of moral judgement, and it looks at the meaning of ethical principles. Normative ethics tries to find practical moral code that we can live by. It is concerned with the content of moral judgements and the criteria for what is right and wrong. Finally applied-ethics is the application of ethical theories and using them in real life issues such as medical research or human rights (Hume D, 2011).
It is possible that some cultures are wrong regardless of the fact that cultures and people vary in their moral judgments. Objectivism insists that while moral principles are objectively true and universally binding, there are exceptions due to context or application. Objectivism is when I have my ethical views, and you have yours and neither of my views nor yours are better than any other. When talking about objectivism the cons are that one is encouraged not to make any sacrifices, because people will become dependent on your good will. But the ends do not prove or justify the means, so if you 're hurting yourself in any way you are committing an act of evil, and the victim will become dependent on your