Moral Relativism By David Wong: Article Analysis

Relativism is the philosophical idea that the views and beliefs of a person are valid and relative to them. It can include many positions, whether it be religious, moral, cultural or even political. Over the course of this quarter I have been introduced to many different theories like Utilitarianism, Deontological and Teleological theories, but none of them got my attention like Normative Cultural Relativism. What’s great about philosophy is that there are no right or wrong answers, yet I cannot help but realize that many philosophers nowadays are biased about Normative Cultural Relativism. Many don’t agree and rather attack the theory which is why I intend to defend it.

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.

In ‘A Defense of Ethical Relativism,’ Ruth Benedict shares her view on relativism by stating, “Most of those organizations of personality that seem to us most uncontrovertibly abnormal have been used by different civilizations in the very foundations of their institutional life… Normality, in short, within a very wide range, is culturally defined.” (Benedict, 1934) Moral relativism widely accepts the various beliefs and cultures that are present in society today, and while such tolerance is important, it can also come with downfalls. Because relativists do not believe in labeling actions as right or wrong, it eliminates liability, which could result in complete disorder and

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..

Moral relativism identifies with the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral set in stone. This position would bear witness to that our morals progress and change with social principles over a compass of time. This hypothesis grants people to change ethically as the lifestyle, data, and advancement change in the general population stadium. Servitude is a better than average instance of good relativism. More than once the estimation of an individual

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

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.

In this essay I will argue that unrestricted moral relativism is incorrect because of the objection that our moral judgments is not just based on our culture or history. I believe that our moral judgments are based on who we choose to be. If this theory was true. This means that you are stuck with cultural morals for the rest of our lives. Yet a lot of people move to different places with different cultures. They start to adopt to new morals, and new way of thinking of what is right or wrong.

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).

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.

However, relativism informs us that we would be wrong to think that we hold the true form of morality. Additionally, throughout our lives, we attempt to pursue values that could make us live fulfilling lives, though we ought to acknowledge that fulfillment is also relative hence there are no values that could be designed or claimed to be universally fulfilling (p. 20). Realizing that relativism is real could help everyone individually by demonstrating that our treasured values are parochial and mutable. We ought to abandon the assumption that others share our beliefs and acknowledge that our moral values could have been different had we be born or had we lived in different conditions. In this manner, we will be able to be more flexible, open-minded, and tolerant. However, the three serious shortcoming of the relativist theory makes it unattractive. However, if we were to have open minds and refrain from arrogance, we could be able to accommodate the relativist theory without accepting the entire

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.

James Rachels discusses in his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, the various problems that appear when analyzing the implications of cultural relativism. I will begin by explaining what cultural relativism is and the fallacy of the argument for it. Then, I will explain how other objections, such as an indefinite definition of culture and cultural relativism’s incompatibility with moral improvement, raise further problems with the theory. The cultural relativist can argue against the objections, which I will then explain, however the relativists’ arguments raise further problems or do not provide a complete fix for the original objection. Although cultural relativism seems like an attractive theory

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.

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.