"Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics", by Steve Wilson.

Moral Relativism is classified under any positions concerning the differences in moral judgments between people and the culture. Moral relativism is the position that ethical or moral propositions make claims regarding cultural or personal circumstances. Moral Relativism affirms relative form of validation of moral statements but doesn’t deny them. Moral relativist typically view the ethical standards of right or wrong are culturally based and are issued to a person's individual decision. Instead of making their decision on “what is right,” decisions are based on self-interest. This procedure has a negative impact on behavior and will affected the way we treat others.

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

Steve Wilkens presents the ethical dilemma of stealing in chapter 7 It’s Your Duty, Kantian Ethics in his book Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics. Wilkens concludes that Kant’s ethical system is made up on the grounds of reason, stating that all rational things should be accepted universally. The rational statement, stealing is wrong and must be outlawed, should be accepted universally. Additionally, the rational statements, that man should obey the laws of the land, protect the land, protect his family, protect his property and serve his community, because it is his “ethical duty”, as stated by Immanuel Kant, should be universally acceptable.

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

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

As people, we all want to be understood by others. “When dealing with others, seek first to understand, then to be understood.” (Maxwell, 37) Finally, while trying to keep others’ needs in perspective, we do not want to be taken advantage of. When this happens it devalues you and the person you took advantage of. All of these will help give an individual the basic outlines of how to begin to look at “The Golden Rule.” To begin this process of adapting this “Golden Rule” lifestyle, the character of a person is the key to living a life of integrity and ethical excellence. A person’s character is more than just talk. People, who want to earn the respect of their peers and themselves, need to walk the talk. There are many things people do not get to choose, how tall they are or where they are born, but character is a choice that can be made by anyone. “Trust is essential when working with people. Character engenders trust.” (Maxwell 44) People tend to fall into three categories: those who don’t succeed, those who succeed temporarily, and those who remain successful. To have a quality character will help to remain successful throughout their lifetime. In the world today, we see examples in the media of people who do not act as ethically as they should. There are many reasons why people do not do the right thing. These reasons generally fall into five factors that someone compromises their ethics for. To begin with pressure is a major culprit. In our

Some of the strengths of this moral approach is due to the fact that on the surface utilitarianism sounds great to everyone. Who doesn't want more happiness and less harm? This idea is also universal, everyone across the globe desires this basic idea of more happiness and less harm. Yet, there are also multiple weaknesses within this belief system. The individual actor in this belief can be manipulated to do anything that would be good for the masses, and if this means suffering it does not matter because the good of all is the focus, not the individual. Another negative associated with utilitarianism is that humans can not see the future and determine which decisions will have entirely positive elements and which ones will have terrible negative side effects so then how do you know that your decision was morally right? One more problem with utilitarianism is that you have to make split second decisions all the time and this can be very difficult if you are a utilitarian. How could you possibly weigh out a split second decisions effect on everyone in your community and make sure that you are choosing the right one to bring happiness to everyone? After weighing out both sides of the argument I believe that the weaknesses outweigh the strengths, therefore I do not adhere to the beliefs of

First of all, utilitarianism is a theory wherein an action is right if it tends to promote happiness at the end of the day, and that an action is wrong if it tends to produce the opposite of happiness. This theory that was ‘produced’ by Jeremy

Two main types of ethical relativism are cultural relativism and normative ethical relativism. Cultural relativism says that there are different cultures and they always have different ways of thinking behaving and learning from the generation before, and this can be seen in daily life just by how different countries do things like music, dress, and even politics. Normative ethical relativism says that there is no universal right or wrong in the universe instead it says that what is right or wrong is different from society to society and that there is no

The utilitarian promotion of pleasure or happiness as the intrinsic good makes it akin to Hedonism or Epicureanism that holds “mental delight and peace were the goods to be sought in life (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54). Thus, utilitarianism as “a pleasure or happiness theory” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54) promotes that the only goals that man ought to seek were happiness and pleasure (MacKinnon, 2012). On the other hand, one has to note, that utilitarianism is not egoism, for the fact that happiness and pleasure are to be

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's

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