Moral Relativism By David Wong: Article Analysis

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

There are different ways to define ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is a theory that moral does not reflect objective standard from right and wrong but it views what is right and wrong. The Christian believe that God was the source of morality but rather moral relativism was not based on any absolute strand are. Ethical truth is based on the variable such as situation or culture. The opposite point of view is the objective right and wrong is called the objectivism.

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

In the article “Moral Relativism Defended,” Gilbert Harman argues for moral relativism in that, when an agreement is reached, morality becomes apparent in accordance with an understanding of one another. Ultimately, Harman molds his “logical” thesis towards one title within his relativism “inner judgments” (page 36) in morally absorbing what constitutes a right or wrong judgment while also considering all aspects of a situation implying reason to an individual and affirmation from society, for example. Defending these moral judgments relates to motivating and changing attitudes of which procure from an agreement, in other words, a form of the term moral relativism. Overall a case against judgments rationally defending what someone a part of society should or should not do and how moral judgments can be established through intentions, goals, and mere desires.

Moral relativism states that our moral judgments are based on our culture. There are no standpoint that is uniquely privileged over all others. The main idea about this theory is that different cultures have different moral values, so there are no universal

However, advocate moral relativism, when different cultures or personal conflict of fundamental ethical principles, we have no

Moral principles within cultural relativism do vary and any given culture believe theirs is the true moral value. Three anthropological facts outlined by relativism are as follows.

Moral Relativism is a theory of human conduct based on observational studies of differences between cultures. The vast differences in ethical systems worldwide deny the presence of a universal moral code and pinpoints moral truths to the culture of which creates it. (David Wong 442). Conflict in values brings forth the question ‘is one more justified than the other?’ Ruth Benidict is quoted “Moralities are socially approved habits” (in Beauchamp 40). This means that each society creates its own moral standards. Human’s complex nature allows the possibility for there to be numerous ‘true’ values and for these values to be regarded in different ways by different groups (David Wong 446). The relative doctrine is based on a claim that each moral standard focuses on a good entirely justifiable and neither can be distinguished as better or worse (Brandt 274).

Relativism is the position that all points of view are pretty much as considerable and the individual makes sense of what is certifiable and relative for them. Relativism surmises that truth is various for unmistakable people not simply that assorted people acknowledge differing things to be legitimate. While there are relativists in science and number juggling, moral relativism is the most generally perceived blend of relativism. Practically everyone has heard a relativist trademark:

Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture (Rachels, 16).

Throughout his essay “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, “James Rachels describes cultural relativism, the concept that all cultures have different moral codes and that there is no true moral code, and he also provides six claims that are related to cultural relativism, in which some of these he believes are true and the rest false.

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.

Morality and how it is defined has always been a controversial topic amongst societies and academic scholars worldwide. These moral tensions stem from two different competing worldviews – moral absolutism and moral relativism. Absolutists are committed to the existence of a universal set of moral standards that apply to everyone, while relativists believe morality is subject to a person’s own individual choice. There are many reasons as to why moral absolutism is the preferable choice when it comes to making moral decisions. And although both viewpoints include valid arguments, in regards to what is best for American society, moral absolutism is the guide that ensures an effective society through continuity.

Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion, traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the “doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs”(Pojman, 24).

The definition of moral relativism is that the moral judgments of true or false is relative based on many factors and there is no universal moral judgment is absolutely right or wrong. In this paper, I want to argue for moral relativism. In my opinion, there is no objective morality that all morality is made of people’s opinion, which influenced by different culture, time, and all the factors around individuals.