Across the world, peoples of all backgrounds universally recognize the need for morality and ethics in society and governance. Despite this, the exact moral codes that groups of people follow often vary from country to country, region to region, tribe to tribe and so on. This has created cause for many moral and ethical experts to adopt a view of subjective morality, or morality that varies from culture to culture. Despite the problems that immediately arise when exploring this view, including acts condemned in most parts of the world, such as sacrificial killings, rape, and genital mutilation, being considered moral based on a given society’s accepting of it, subjective morality appears to have some truthfulness to it, as societies, do …show more content…
The phenomenon of apparent subjective morality is often explained by its proponents through the existence of different religious doctrine. The contrary of this, though, is quite true, as the inclusion of moral and ethical code in religion across the world, despite a singular unifying religion not being adopted by earth’s societies, is an argument for an objective ethical code independent of societal interpretation. The mandate for some moral or ethical code in all religions is proof that such a code must exist in society, regardless of what that code may include.
The adherence to different religions in different parts of the world introduces a variable to measure morality against, as religion is a social construct that creates different moral standards for a society to adhere to based on what religion it dominantly practices. By comparing the tenants of the worlds’ religions to each other, some basic tenant of objective morality can be established. If no shared tenants could not be found, then it would be proven that objective morality does not exist; this, however, is not the case. In examining shared tenants across religions, two basic, universal tenants can be discovered. These are self-improvement (though through what means is generally dependent upon a specific religion) and general good will towards and treatment of one’s fellow society members.
Not all people who are religious have sound morals, just as not all people who are atheistic are immoral. In his article, John Arthur discusses why religion does not depend on morality and morality does not depend on religion. Arthur seeks to alter the perspective of those who believe religion is necessary within a society to have a proper moral code. Many believe religion provides a purpose in life, a motivation to do what is right, and a set list of guidelines to follow in order to be a good person.
Questions about morality are at the very center of heated debates and discussions surrounding the topic of religion. This theme, the potential interlinking between religion and morality, is explored by Plato in his work Euthyphro. The foundational question that Plato asks is how is something determined to be good or moral: through independent reasoning or by divine prescription. I believe that the only rational position to take on the issue is to conclude that morality must be separate from religion. This position, however, spawns many questions about what role religion does have in life. Ultimately, I believe that having an independent morality standard does change the way religion is used, but religion is still an
On one hand people accept that there are universal moral principles that are normal in every culture. But, on the other hand people feel that cultural differences should be looked upon with sensitivity and tolerance (Bock, 2014). You can look at such cultural and perhaps religious differences as circumcision in both men and women (Bock, 2014). In the U.S. you can abortions as an example of moral and religious choice but in other countries they feel it is morally and ethically correct to kill female babies when they are born (Bock,
Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.
The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.
suggests that on a global scale, unique societies fail to share the same evaluative language when
A few thousand years ago, three sets of laws were composed that show remarkable similarities in their instructions on how to live a moral and righteous life. Although they were written hundreds of miles apart from each other, and in totally different cultures and civilizations, the Edicts of Ashoka, the Bible, and Hammurabi’s Code all elucidate the moral principles of self-control, justice, and abstention from harming living beings.
When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a
Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard
These virtuous standards directs our actions in order that nonviolent societies might be. Many individuals acquire ethical standards from their family, their peers at institutes, in religious settings, or in other public locations. While a record amount of societies obtain their logic of that which is
To many individuals, morality and religion are two related but distinct ideas. To be specific, morality consists of principles set by societal norms concerning the distinction between right and wrong and good and bad behaviour among persons. Alternatively, religion involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality or a superhuman controlling power, God. In many societies in the past and present, the idea of God is used to help reinforce moral codes as valuable and vital through rituals and methods of presenting the teachings of God. By many, religion is used to instil fear
In today’s world, religion plays a profound part in many people’s lives and they find it important to firmly follow the guiding principles of a religion. Religion has been
In this paper I will discuss Cultural Relativism and argue that the cultural difference argument is not a sound one, because its premise does not prove or disprove its conclusion. Further, I will use this to prove that morals can be objectively true and do not have to change on a culture to culture basis. Cultural Relativism theorizes the nature of morality and whether moral truths are correct even if they are not agreed on across all cultures.
Cultural and ethical relativisms are widely used theories that explain differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Morality deals with individual character and the moral rules that are meant to govern and limit one’s character. On the other hand Ethics is somewhat interchangeable with morals, but it actually defines the principles of right conduct, thus to some extent, enlarging its scope to a societal or communal level. Ideally, ethics play a vital role in determining the dos and don’ts when dealing with the society. This essay will discuss what ethical realism is, analyzing why ethical relativism is unsound and unreliable in relation to the relevant evidence and literature, providing valid reason to ascertain why this is the case.
Different societies have different moral codes. Cultural relativism claims that ethics is relative to individuals, groups, cultures and societies. Relativism resists universal moral normal. The moral code of society determines what is right or wrong in that society. There’s no objective standard that can be used to judge one’s society code against another. Its arrogant to judge others cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. Cultural relativism for many people is a response to the complexity of moral issues and the number of different responses various. Groups our cultures have given to moral issues so for many when we look at just how different cultures have responded two different issues the way different cultures. All this diversity that there seems to be a response where we want to say well, maybe there isn 't some sort of absolute right or wrong maybe morality really is just relative to a different group that different people believe different things. In this paper, I will discuss the aspect of my culture from an outside perspective and discuss another culture from an inside perspective. In sociology, the principle is sometimes practiced to avoid cultural bias in research, as well as to avoid judging another culture by the standards of one 's own culture. For this reason, cultural relativism has been considered an attempt to avoid ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism is related to but often distinguished from moral relativism, the view that morality is relative to