More handpicked essays just for you.
Three concepts relativism as theory of ethical behavior chapter
Give critical analysis of ethical relativism
Three concepts relativism as theory of ethical behavior chapter
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the paper I will discuss how ethics is or is not related to one’s culture or personal beliefs. I will also touch base on relativism as a universal theory and what that means.
To answer the question of whether all ethics is related to one’s culture or own beliefs, we have to first define what ethical relativism is. Ethical relativism is a theory that states that morality is relative to a person’s cultural norms. With ethical relativism there is not a set truth in ethics, what is considered right or wrong varies from person to person or culture to culture. With that being said it may seem very clear that all ethics are related to one’s own customs, right? Well let me explain. When we were born, we were not born with ethics, we learn them
…show more content…
from our families, friends, religion, culture and other sources, about what is ethically correct and what is not.
Since no one culture is the same as another culture, how can our ethical views be the same? They can’t. A Greek historian of the 5th century named Herodotus, advances this observation “when he observed that different societies have different customs and that each person thinks his own society’ customs are best. But no set of social customs, is really better or worse than any other” (Rachels, 2015). Herodotus also went on to say that, there is no such thing as what is really right or wrong apart from our social codes. Social codes are all that exist and are different from culture to culture, they are the rights and wrongs for that culture. “Each society develops standards that are used by people within it to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable behavior, and every judgment of right and wrong presupposes one or another of these standards. For example, if your society believes in arranged marriage, then arrange marriage is right for “your society”; and if that practice is wrong within my society than the arrange marriage practice is wrong for my society. Another argument that supports the ethical relativism can be read by a Scottish philosopher Davis Hume. David …show more content…
Hume appealed that a person’s moral beliefs were not based on reason, but emotions or “sentiment”. For example, I feel bad for someone who is homeless and decide to give them money. I am not giving that person money because it is the right thing to do or because it will make the greater people happy, but because I am acting off of my emotions. “Moral language is not to state facts but to express feelings of approval or disapproval toward some action or to influence the attitudes and actions of others. “Truths,” including the truths of science as well as ethics, should be recognized as beliefs associated with particular traditions that serve particular purposes in particular times and places.” (Rachel, 2015). This idea was later developed in the 20th century School of logical positivism and other philosophers. Now that we have covered that all ethics can be relativism, we need to answer the question of whether ethical relativism can work as a universal moral. Since the ethical relativism theory states that there is not one set of ethical views, but they vary from person to person, then the relativism theory can work as a universal moral because the theory can be used as a system of ethics to all individuals or cultures.
Since the relativism theory can be used as a universal moral, then this would conclude that there are universal principles and individual applications. To have a universal principle and an individual’s application means that the principle remains the same from culture to culture but is different from the way that one would apply it to their life. An example of this would be that relativism is a universal principle used by a cultures that does not change from culture to culture but the way the individuals with in that culture decides to use it is different. Killing is a universal principle that remains the same in every culture, but what is defined as killing changes among the individuals with in the
culture. In conclusion, ethical relativism theory makes the most sense to me, since different cultures have different beliefs and values. There is not one cultural beliefs that are superior to another culture, that belief is just fit for that culture, this is known as social codes. What one culture may see as wrong can be completely different from another culture, and vice versa.
Many seem to have falling prey to the seduction of ethical relativism, because it plays in to their ethnocentric egoistic moral belief. Individuals such as Pojman are able to critically evaluate this moral principle and not fall victim like his or hers lay counter parts. We will attempt to analyze the theory of ethical relativism, by check the validity of this ethical theory, and evaluate its ethical concepts. With these procedures we will find if it is competent as an ethical principle to adhere by. Then evaluate Louis Pojman critique on ethical relativism and analyze does he successfully refute relativism position. We will also analyze objectivism; the ethical theory which Pojman erects in the place of ethical relativism.
To the Moral Relativist, moral principles are created within cultures and communities, coming from cultural folkways and mores (Gerson Moreno-Riaño, personal communication). These principles are normative only in the culture which created them. Already, the Hippocratic Oath loses its moral weight. For example, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion, Justice Blackmun dismissed the centuries-long Hippocratic tradition as merely a “Pythagorean manifesto,” relegating it to minority status (Cameron, 2001). However, relativism does not end here.
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
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.
While moral relativism may seem appealing due to the fact that if and individuals behavior feels right to them than it is right for them. When applying this position of morals to everyday situations it revealed to be a fairy tale in search of individualism. Unless everyone lives in a bubble where they have no interaction with anyone else moral relativism is just not pragmatic. Consider if you were mugged, during the altercation, you were beaten, injured and your personal belongings were stolen. After applying moral relativism to this situation, the conclusion is that the person who mugged you did absolutely nothing wrong. The person you feel may have violated you as an individual felt that their actions were right. Why would this person submit you to this behavior? This not a question that a moral relativist would ask because they have no right to influence or question another’s moral values. In addition t...
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
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.
For example, say if a building was on fire and a fire man ran back in the building for his son’s dog and refused to save the other children in the building, and there was an ex-convict who ran back in the same burning building to save his son’s dog but not the other children in the building; then the ex-convict is the one who is more morally relative. The reason for this is because the firefighter is trained to rescue people in those kinds of emergency situations. It is insane and cruel for him not to try and rescue the children left in the building. As for the ex-convict no one expects him to care to go back in the building and rescue anyone, so the fact that he was able to save a life even if it was a dog, shows good character for him doing a good deed. See in this situation both the firefighter and ex- convict ignored the children in the burning building, but the fact that it is the firefighter’s duty to save others and he did not he was morally wrong. So, moral relativism is not so much the result but more so the expectations/ realism of the actual situation. As you can see both examples of utilitarianism and moral relativism fits the outcome of a good act that is meant to please someone; while both examples fit a different theory because the way the way the situation was
He goes on to introduce normative moral relativism, which looks at how one ought to act in various situations, as well as the Universalist position which indicates that there cannot be equally right sides to an argument and there is only one absolute truth to any particular issue (Wong 442).
“Different cultures have different moral codes”, James Rachels discusses in his article Why Morality Is Not Relative? (Rachels, p. 160). A moral code is a set of rules that is considered to be the right behavior that may be accepted by a group of individuals within a society. Each culture tends to have their own individual standards and moral codes. Moral codes are guidelines laid out by a cultures ancestors. Standards are guidelines set forth by the individual themselves. Standards and morals don’t always have to be the same, but there are instances where they are. The moral codes claim what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Moral codes outline what behaviors individuals are supposed to make. These codes are basically laws, but specifically
Moral Relativism – What is it? Moral relativism is the view that moral or ethical statements, which vary from person to person, are all equally valid and no one’s opinion of “right and wrong” is really better than any other. Moral relativism is a broader, more personally applied form of other types of relativistic thinking, such as cultural relativism. These are all based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is purely a product of a person’s preferences and environment.
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