Ethical Relativism is an unsound and unreliable ethical philosophy
Mohammed Jweihan
Ethics for a Global Economy
Ethical Relativism is an unsound and unreliable ethical philosophy
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.
Ethical realism
This is a doctrine that bases its arguments in the fact that there are no universal absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. Ethical relativism is a similar concept, based specifically on the ethics of a culture and how they are related to those of other cultures (Kluckhohn, 2011). Herodotus, the Greek historian advanced this view when he observed that different societies have different customs and that each person thinks that his customs are
Loretta Kopelman’s dissertation, Female Genital Circumcision and Conventionalists Ethical Relativism, takes a new approach in a global plight. Kopelman begins her thesis by elaborating on a particular tribe in southern Kenya. She describes how young girls are being mutilated for marriageability. Their fathers, eager for large dowries, perform the ritual on girls as young as nine. While some victims are able to escape and seek sanctuary, this obviously isn’t always possible and thus these girls must live with an inflicted deformity their whole life that doesn’t only cause serious health complications but sometimes even death.
An ethical relativist believes that moral rules differs from one culture to another. From their point of view, a person should only be held accountable to their own culture’s practices and beliefs. In this situation, an ethical relativist might argue that we should respect our cultural differences and should not impose our view of morality onto others. Another way is to be a moral absolutist. A moral absolutist believes there is an objective universal moral standard that everyone is held accountable to. Unlike an ethical relativist, this standard applies to everyone at all times, regardless of their culture (13). This is trickier because it depends on their ideals. The absolutism of vegetarian well say that it is morally wrong to eat all animals regardless of the cultural differences and circumstances of that
Between Stace and Benedict’s arguments I was able to narrow them down to the main points of ethical absolutism and relativism. I believe that Benedict’s argument towards ethical relativism is more accurate in our world today. Morality and the judgment of right and wrong can differ because of religious reasons, the culture you were brought up in, or who you were brought up by. There is no one moral structure standing that people of all cultures and society believe in. Morality can vary based on the culture, society, and the individual. For example some cultures and religions find homosexuality as immoral while others believe it is perfectly acceptable. Another example is that some believe killing is seen as completely immoral no matter what, but others find that killing is immoral except for certain occasions. I believe that it is nearly impossible to assume that all people of
Relativism is the theory that doesn't support universal moral right and wrong. Subjective relativism states that each persons has their own decision about the right and wrong regardless of the moral norms.
There are two different branches of moral realism. One, moral absolutism which means that in any situation a person is in, no matter the circumstances their morals stay the same every single time. Two, moral pluralism and this can be described as a person having all of their moral values. In addition to, abiding by their moral values, they also have to abide by their moral guidelines. This can be hard because at times they can conflict, but if any situation where you have to provide yourself with self defense, it is allowed. Moral realism can be described as being very judgmental. Applying moral judgments that is noticed in a person such as saying, “Paul is morally good.” There is always a way to morally judge a person by laying down the principles for acceptable and/or unacceptable behavior. The use of moral realism is simply using the codes of logic to make a moral judgement, in a statement. Not all the time will there be a true or immoral way to make a judgement. There will also be factual beliefs, such as making a false belief. Moral realism will also be needed when two beliefs are conflicted, then you have to apply your full focus to the belief that is truly moral, to decide what is the best choice. Some examples of Philosophers who fall under the moral realism category are Richard Boyd, as he believes that moral statements are either true or false. In addition,the great philosopher known as Plato also leaned towards the moral realism side rather then moral relativism.
Moral relativism puts forth the idea that all morals are relative to the culture or particular beliefs of an individual. To those that hold this concept as a fundamental value-yea, even a moral-it is wrong and judgmental for one segment of society to condemn any other different segment of society because of differing morals.
Within our society, it has been shown that there is an individual. An individual with individual thoughts and actions. But who determines whether or not he is correct in their choices? Are our thoughts brain washed through the media with it’s hellish ideas or our closet friends that try to direct us in the right direction? No one may ever know what is right or wrong. So what is ethical relativism anyway? And who is behind all of the madness of ethical relativism? It has been said that relativist’s are believed to think that relativism is true. Ethical Relativism is of a mind to say that whatever one’s culture says is right is the right thing for him or her to do. One might conclude that the world we human beings live in is not without a variety
For an argument to be valid the structure of the argument must be good. A valid argument is not focused on the content, but more so the structure of the argument. The premises are supporting statement in an argument. Premises could be false and the argument would still hold validity just because of its structure. When an argument is being judged on validity, to be valid the argument has to have a particular form that guarantees if the premises are true the conclusion is absolutely true. The reason we look at the structure and not the content is because the argument is deductive. Meaning, it is supposed to give logically conclusive support to its conclusion.
Is our perception of things around us real? If so, how can we be certain that the universe around us actually exists? And how can we know that the world we see matches what anyone else experiences? So, what’s real? A bunch of questions like these made scientists omit the term “absolute” from their theories and think of what relativity should be. Many approaches were there to define relativity which is subject to change or to be modified whenever a new concept is introduced. Centuries ago, physicists’ laws were based on the Newtonian relativity that’s summarized as “the laws of mechanics are the same for any observer moving at constant speed”. In other words, we all play by the same physical rules, whether we are moving or standing still. But,
Religious cults choices and actions differ from mainstream society.Religious cult promotes a religious belief system. Also, some cults are Secular, and they promote quasi-scientific or quasi-psychological principle. There are others cults that promote both religious, and secular belief systems.Most cults have a utopian belief system. They do things together. They belief in all things in common. One part of the spectrum have the established mainstream belief system part of the cult. The middle part has a secular humanist belief system. These are the non conformist and fashionable fad. At the end of the spectrum are the exclusive coteries. These are characterize by their belief and they look down on the mainstream values and culture. (ex-cult)
My precise attentiveness in this subject is whether relativism, which is a belief about beliefs, is an adequate or workable foundation for ethics. I wonder if relativism avoids us from discriminating and supporting those principles most productive of justice and happiness for all. Can it manage moral passion, bravery, and obligation to live by the highest and best we know. People who loathe relativism maintain that valid moral judgments reflect the objective structure of reality. Right and wrong are punished in natural law or the will of God or some other pattern in the very nature of things. Or else all sorts of dire consequences chart. Not all criticisms assume the same definition or apply to every type of relativism. Some of the typical
When I first read the "United Nations Declaration of Human Rights", I thought about how anyone could argue that these rights are not universal or could disagree with the four articles that were stated. Upon reading the textbook and learning about ethical relativist, I now realize why someone would think that this list is useless. In the eyes of an ethical relativist, there is no universal moral code that would or could unify the different cultures.
The philosophy of ethics attempts to answer or address issues of morality and determine whether something is right or wrong, and why. Moral relativism is one of many ethics positions that essentially recognizes that people have disagreeing moral beliefs and therefore, one must be tolerant of other people’s morals. This stance leads to the problematic realization that if this is true, there can be no objective moral truths or universal principles. Additionally, the moral theory of ethical egoism refers to an individual deciding to do what is right for only themselves, and they do not consider the well - being of others around them. Though many people act on their self - interest more than they care to admit, this theory has few people pleading
The question of ethics and what is considered to be ethical can be a difficult one to explain. There are many situations where right and wrong or black and white distinctions are perceptible. The right thing to do in the situation is easily able to be discerned, though it may not be the easiest thing to do. However, this particular state of affairs is the far rarer of the potential occasions. More often than not, trying to determine what is the right and/or wrong choice in a given situation is difficult, if not impossible. Usually the world is not divided into categorizations wherein things can be broken down into either good or bad, right or wrong, black or white. Times occur in life wherein a person will be met with the opportunity to make a choice between two options, of which the morally right or wrong thing may be difficult to ascertain. There will be times when the right or wrong thing will not be as obvious as one would like it to be. Sometimes an honest action will be unprofitable and thus unpleasant and it can be difficult for the individual to be willing to make that correct choice. Having said all this, the next question becomes how is right and wrong determined? The crux of relativism is the idea that morals are relative. This means that what is categorized as right or wrong is relative to the psychology of the society in which that morality exists.
In different cultures around the world, many things such as marriage and burial of the dead aren’t the same. For instance, marriage in Japan is different than the one that is held here in America. The traditional marriage custom in Japan is that the soon to be married couple would hold the ceremony in Shinto shrine, wearing traditional clothing. There are about eleven steps in a Japanese traditional wedding, which is way different compared to an American wedding.