Ethical Relativism Essays

Ethical relativism is a theory based on the belief that there are no general standards that are considered to be ethically acceptable. Ethical relativists believe that there is no actual standard of what is right or wrong. The two forms of ethical relativism are personal, or individual ethical relativism and cultural ethical relativism.

Let's start off with moral relativism, This is the belief that that there is no right or wrong answer to anything. This being said, you can still have your own views on different subjects and or beliefs, but you will not force those views/opinions upon anyone. This is because it would go against moral relativism in that you are not going to force your views upon another individual. Moral relativism opens up a whole new world of perspective, this is good because if we had no moral relativism the whole world would go into chaos because we would see the world as if we were one of the men in the cave in the story of “Plato’s Allegory “ The men in This story only saw the shadows from a fire, only showing them a false reality about the world they

Cultural ethical relativists believe that morality is dependent on the culture the individual is involved with. While physical laws are universally accepted, morals are objective depending on where someone lives or who they grew up around. Furthermore, morality is formed based on the history of political and social instances in cultural ethical relativism. This theory of cultural ethical relativism is widely accepted throughout the world. It is so popular because there is empirical evidence that shows that culture’s morals differ through certain parts of the world or different religions. While one culture might consider something to be moral, a different culture might consider the same exact thing to be immoral. An example of this involves

Ethical relativism is the acceptance of differing views as all correct because there is no right answer. Ethical relativism eliminates all judgement because there is arguably no final truth, no right or wrong. As Doug Powell, author of Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics, puts it ethical relativism is the idea that “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me” (79). Simplistically, this ideology follows the conviction that we are unable to pass judgement on another for we do not have the power to say our ways or ideas are superior over another’s, While this may sound logical at first, a closer look into this ideology reveals frightening consequences from what can happen by strictly following

There are two branches to ethical relativism that help individuals better understand this theory. “Cultural relativism claims that the correct moral standards are relative to cultures or societies; ethical subjectivism claims that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by an individual” (Shafer-Landau 293). For example, when analyzing fairness and how to handle someone who has wronged you there are multiple ways. A strong Christian would try to forgive, pray for the person, and love them unconditionally. However, someone from a strong Islamic background might think “an eye for an eye”. This example helps show how a relativist would view the varying opinions when it comes to how to properly handle certain situations. Moral principles vary depending on the individual and culture. There are no definite moral truths. “Both cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism are popular ways of challenging the idea that morality is objective” (Shafer-Landau

Ethical Relativism takes the position that morality is relative to time periods, cultures, subcultures within cultures and time periods (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyers, 1987).

Lets first define what ethical relativism is, Santa Clara University explains it very simple in a easy to understand definition. It 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 moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another (Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J.; Michael J. Meyer [Santa Clara University], n.d., para. 4). Our Text in this weeks reading goes on to explain while we might find that a set of moral values may be right in a given time or within a different culture it might not necessary be right in our time period or our culture.

Is ethical relativism correct? The definition of ethical relativism is the “idea that what is actually right and wrong can vary from one person or group of people to another.” Moreover, Matti Häyry describes ethical relativism as a “doctrine that says that the validity of norms and values is always related to some changing, or diverse, phenomenon or viewpoint. It does not say that all norms and values should be rejected, although it is opposed to the idea of absolute rules and principles.” Essentially, this means that my ideas of right and wrong may differ from your ideas, since as individuals, our exposure to everyday life and different cultures will greatly influence our approach to this question.

Relativism is a view on what is right and what is wrong. This view comes from a personal view point of an individual, group, or culture. Relativism does not have a universal standard meaning there is not one view that is the basis for everyone across the board Since different cultures and even people within cultures and different groups differences will exist in ethical standards. It judges not the end result but the whole of the situation.

When we take a look a human nature it displays no type of law and the consequences have no bearing due to each person or society may interpret each consequence differently. Society’s ethics evolve over time and change it to fit circumstances. You may have a person that feels or think it is morally wrong to eat meat but, also believe it is unethical for a government to force other to be vegetarian. What about that parent or parents that may agree with the law that prohibits underage drinking but, will allow their child to drink at family functions. Several facts of ethical relativism, which states that universal truth is impossible to determine but, at the same tome admits that ethical behaviors does

Hi, Mary. I’m taking Moral choice class in this semester, and I found an interesting concept. There is the ethical relativism. It is said that there is no one standard about what is right or wrong. The judgement of what is right or wrong varies from cultures to cultures. The same action may be morally accepted in one society, but it is not accepted in another society. I think that the ethical relativism is true. I agree with the idea that there is no one objection answer. In the first, the culture always changes. It cannot be the same style all the time. If the standard about what is right or wrong depends on the cultures, when the culture change, the standard also should change. In other words, the morality answer cannot remain same, and it

Ethical Relativism is the general idea that the views of a society determine what is either right or wrong. That the views of a society is the absolute truth and should be followed.

The dominant perspective in modern, Western philosophy is moral universalism. This is not surprising considering the very definition of morality holds universal weight. The discipline of ethics, also known as moral philosophy, explores the ideal way for all humans to live. The position of moral universalism asserts that some system of ethics applies universally, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, or any other distinguishing feature. This position is supported by utilitarianism and deontology. However, how does this explain the countless cases when one culture says a practice is ethical and another says it isn’t? It would not be fair to claim that one culture is wrong and the other is right. I argue that moral relativism is a more practical

In Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, Pojman states that morality refers to the actions we take either right or wrong. This paper should analyze the favor of moral objectivism and the rejection of ethical relativism. According to Pojman, “Ethical relativism holds that moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society or individual to individual.” (p.19) That is, what is considered right in one society, might be considered wrong in another society (Diversity thesis). One should not judge because there are no universal moral principles. As a result, this theory avoids ethnocentrism, the belief that one’s culture is superior to another. According to Pojman, “Moral objectivism holds that there are moral principles valid for all societies.” (p.15) That is, there are certain universal moral codes that are valid for all humans, either as an individual or as a society, and does not depend on anyone’s point of view.

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 moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. Moral or ethical relativism is the idea that what is considered moral or immoral depends on the accepted behaviors within the society in which the determination is made. Therefore, what is considered moral or ethical in one society may be considered immoral or unethical in another, but each society is equally correct. For this reason the question remains, if and action is considered to be moral does that mean that the action is also normal? Although something may seem right to someone living in a different community, people living in a society like ours today may feel differently. Ethical Relativism can be looked at are moral or immoral in many different ways. Looking at the articles Guarding The Boundaries, A Defense of Ethical Relativism and Butterflies and Wheels, it is clearly shown that although ethnical relativism may seem immoral, but really in many ways is moral.