The Role Of Morality In Black Mirror

843 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The case for moral relativism

Upon watching the episode titled “White Christmas” in the series “Black Mirror” by Charlie Brooker, one philosophical issue stuck out to me the most. The episode provided a situation which provoked thoughts of its questionable morality. I was brought to wonder whether the situation was right or wrong and why it would be so. After it was brought to my attention that one of the character’s opinion of the morality of the situation differed from my own, I was prompted to take a deeper look at morals. I began to wonder why the characters had differing beliefs from each other as well as myself about the morality of the situation. This question introduced further questions: Are morals something that come naturally to us, or are they created by us? …show more content…

Hume once wrote, “All morality depends upon our sentiments; and when any action or quality of the mind pleases us after a certain manner we say it is virtuous; and when the neglect or nonperformance of it displeases us after a like manner, we say that we lie under an obligation to perform it.” This quote demonstrates his belief that moral decisions are made based on what makes us feel good, what pleases and does not please us - rather than on objective or innate rules regarding morality. This philosophical idea supports moral relativism in that it suggests the subjectivity of morality. Morality is decided by each individual’s feelings, therefore it must be relative to each individual, as everyone does not hold the same feelings. A sadist may consider inflicting pain on someone to be morally correct, since they would enjoy doing so. However, one who does not enjoy hurting someone would consider that act to be morally incorrect - as it would not be an act that was enjoyable or pleasing to them. A sadist and one who is not a sadist having different opinions on what is and is not moral exemplifies the relativity of …show more content…

Moreover, cultures are simply a grouping of those individuals and their system of beliefs. It is evident that each culture is unique in their moral judgments. Philip Hugly and Charles Sayward provided the example of a native Indian and a native Nebraskan having a moral dispute about the killing of cattle for human consumption. In their essay, it was written “Since the judgments of the Indian and the Nebraskan both are in accord with their respective moralities, and each of those judgments is correct in the most fundamental sense of correctness applicable to moral judgments, they are both true,” and this exemplifies the moral relativist’s perspective. The Nebraskan was raised to believe that the killing of cattle is not immoral, due to their culture believing it to be moral. The native of India’s culture believed the act to be immoral, therefore the native was taught to believe the same. The fact that each of their cultures did not agree on the morality of killing cattle supports the concept of moral relativism, since each culture believed they were morally correct - but neither could prove they were. We can conclude from this example of moral diversity between cultures, amongst many others - that morals must be relative to cultures. If they were not, killing cattle would not be “wrong” in some cultures, but “right “ in others - and neither would things such as

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of Professor Beckwith

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    Beckwith described many situations that would have us believe that certain aspects of other cultures have radically different moral values. The most predominant example he uses from philosopher James Rachels, agreeing with his claim he used over Eskimo culture and infanticide. In the Eskimo culture, it is a social and moral norm to kill a child to ensure the family’s survival. When looking at it from an ethnocentric view, many see that as morally wrong, but what Beckwith argues is that if we dig deeper and gain more knowledge of particular facts on these cultures that differences in cultures may not be too far off from our own. So from a morally objective standpoint, Beckwith believes that disagreements are overrated due to the lack of factual information and biases over issues.

    Read More

  • Gilligan’s Perception of Morality in An American Story

    1249 Words  | 3 Pages

    Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Herodotus Argue Against A Case For Moral Relativism

    288 Words  | 1 Pages

    Now, that Herodotus's work described the meaning of customs, I will argue against a case for moral relativism. Ruth Benedict, an American anthropologist, argues for the theory of moral relativism. Specifically, in her work “Anthropology and the

    Read More

  • Martin Luther King Utilitarianism Essay

    2007 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Cultural Relativism: An Impediment to Critical Morality

    1079 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these arguments.

    Read More

  • Moral Relativism Essay

    1332 Words  | 3 Pages

    To many theorists, the philosophical stance embedded in moral relativism aims to understand morality in such a way that refutes an absolute truth. In other words, moral relativism confronts the idea that universal moral standards are inherent to the human species and in doing so suggests that these standards are merely culturally relative. An important aspect of the moral relativist argument includes the fact that cultures vary drastically around the world; and therefore, different cultures have different moral codes. Because a moral relativist distinguishes these differences, they would proclaim that no culture’s moral code can be characterized as “right” or “wrong.”

    Read More

  • Thesis Statement On Moral Relativism

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • David Hume's Argument on Passion and Morality

    1149 Words  | 3 Pages

    Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.

    Read More

  • Morality is Relative

    634 Words  | 2 Pages

    James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

    Read More

  • A Defense of David Hume's Moral Sense Theory

    2350 Words  | 5 Pages

    In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense.

    Read More

  • Moral Relativism

    1958 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Ethical Relativism and Cultural Relativism

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Cultural Relativism

    1155 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.

    Read More

  • Essay On The Challenges Of Cultural Relativism

    1459 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about The Role Of Morality In Black Mirror

Open Document