Ethical Relativism: Norms Of One's Culture

Ethical relativism is the idea that deciding if an action is right or wrong depends on ones own societal normality. The practice of medicine demonstrates this principal. A doctor in one country may see giving a handshake as a welcome as right while in other countries this may not be considered the same.

Ruth Benedict and Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism is an ethical theory that believes that while morals do exist, they depend on each individual culture. This theory also rests on a few moral ideas, the first being that the majority rules. This means that whatever belief the majority of people in a particular society have (which is probably law) is considered morally right. The second point is that what may be considered morally right in one culture may not be right in another.

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 chapter 19 of the philosopher, Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, he presents an overview of the moral theory of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the view that there is some moral truth and that truth is relative to each person or culture. The overarching moral principle can be broken down into ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. The difference being ethical subjectivism says an act is morally acceptable or forbidden if an individual approves or disapproves of the action. And cultural relativism relies on the judgment of morally acceptable or forbidden if a culture or society approves or disapproves of the action (Shafer-Landau, p. 295).

Culture is the Backbone of a society, when something/someone tries to alter it or go against it everyone will notice. In this issue pointed out by Ruth Macklin, we look at the problems that can arise when an individual’s culture and autonomy clash. Every year there at least 30 million immigrants from all over the world that move to the United states of America, making America one of the most culturally diverse country in the world. Keeping this in mind, we will focus on Ruth Macklin’s issue of Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles. Critics argue that we associate culture with a society, community and or family, but rarely with a single individual, thus placing it above the individual person. In this paper we are going to look at four different scenarios on from Ruth Macklin’s article.

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

Ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two types of meta-ethical views, meaning the two theories attempt to understand the reason behind ethical properties, attitudes, boundaries and judgements. Ethical universalism can be viewed as an ideal world, while ethical relativism explains a more realistic perspective on why different cultures can view the same actions differently. The two delve more into the essential meaning of a theory rather than just simply labeling actions as right or wrong.

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.

Cultural relativism is a theory that explains the differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. This theory describe the moral, ethical, and societal differences that diverse cultures experience. Ethical relativism, as described by Ruth Benedict, suggests that normal behavior differs from society to society. What is viewed as morally right for one society can be viewed as morally wrong for another society (Timmons, 2012, p. 55). To support this view, Benedict cites how certain cultural practices are determined by how we are raised and who we are on an emotional level.

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

Ethical relativism and ethical objectivism, what are they and how have we come understand them in our time? These two topics have been a center point for many arguments weather you actually talk about it or not. As much as we like to argue in this world in our daily lives we fail to see what stance we hold. This might be because we aren’t educated enough to realize it or it just might be because we don’t care. We will be discussing the differences between ethical relativisms and ethical objectivism so we can get a better grasp and understanding of these two topics. Ethical relativism is mainly based on what the individual person or society believe. It is what they see as morally right and wrong. Ethical objectivism is the view that some moral

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.

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).

Ethical behavior is different in every culture. One culture may see something as ethically right where another may see it as wrong. Moral relativism plays a role in accepting differences between cultures, even if they do not agree.

Ethical relativism teaches us simply “that there is no universal standard of morality. There is no act that is always right or wrong for all people of all times. Instead of a definable standard, morality is based on the culture, the will of the people, careful consideration of scientific advancements, or personal opinion.” (www.compellingtruth.org)