Ethical Self-Awareness Evaluation-Part I

I am very pleased to say I scored an eight on the Ethical Self-Assessment. Reading the numerus articles and watching the videos made available to me during this class defiantly assisted me on opening my mind more to the ethical side of the psychology field. I plan on using what I learned here to assist me in my work field and personal life.

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

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 defined by Vaughn; it is not objective, because if an act is morally right by one person or morally wrong by a different person, then that is okay as well. Moral objectivism is defined as moral norms are valid for everyone. Rachels and Vaughn both define cultural relativism as moral rightness is whatever a culture or society approves of. Cultural relativism and ethical relativism basically consist of the exempt same theory. Thus being whether its and individual’s belief or a society’s belief both are acceptable. “If people’s moral judgements differ from culture to culture, moral norms are relative to culture (there are no objective moral standards)” (Vaughn 15). Moral objectivism is related to

In order to compare ethics in the terms of various cultures and moral relativism; one must understand Moral Relativism and various cultures. “Moral Relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint and that no stand point is uniquely privileged over all others.” (Westacott) As an example for better understanding if a person says “you have your way, I have my way; as for the right way, it does not exist.” That is moral relativism.

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).

Our moral values can be influenced by the nation’s history, such as past wars or rulers, along with economic situations in that country or area. In India “honor killings” are considered a norm, but seen in the rest of the world as barbaric. In China couples are only legally allowed to have one child. In Africa men take multiple wives. Coming from a different culture I don’t agree with those beliefs or laws, while citizens from other cultures might find the American way of life to be bizarre and offensive. If you asked everyone in the world for what they considered to be “right” or “wrong” everyone would have different answers.

It is fair to agree with the idea of Moral Relativism. Each culture has their own views of right or wrong. Stepping into different cultures is similar to being a part of new societies, each with differing practices and ideals. There is no single definition of what is right or what is wrong. Individuals has their own opinions on separate topics and each reason for a belief is acceptable. For example, in some cultures it is important for a man to have multiple wives and women are not allowed to leave their homes without a man accompanying them. In the United States, it is not acceptable to have multiple wives and each woman has the freedom to go where ever they like whenever they please. When discussing the idea of abortion individuals have opposing views depending on what their morals are and if they believe in the life of an unborn child. While some people believe it is entirely up to the pregnant women whether they desire to abort their

With every culture and sub-culture we have different social norms/standards for what is considered right and wrong. I do not believe there is an overall moral code in which everyone follows universally, for the reason that we as individuals who have different ideas in what we believe to be morally correct, which is what makes us individuals and unique. For example, Polygamy is practiced in many countries, while it is often shunned in the west. With ethical relativism we have different cultures which have different moral codes. So it is almost impossible to have a universally

I believe moral relativism is understood based on how the person lives their life and how it reacts to others. Moral relativism is not based on any morals, but what the person's belief based on their feelings and even their culture can affect their lives. For instance, a person might believe murdering is wrong, but if the cultures determined is right? For example,

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

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.

Cultural relativism is the theory where there is no objective truth in morality, and moral truths are determined by different cultures. The primary argument used to justify cultural relativism is the cultural differences argument, which claims different cultures have different moral practices and beliefs, therefore, there is no objective truth in morality (Newton). After reading James Rachels The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I find his criticisms to be persuasive because the argument made for Cultural Relativism is not sound from a logical point of view. You cannot draw a conclusion about what is factual based on what people believe is factual. Rachels also points out that even though cultures do in fact disagree about moral values,

Moral relativism is the view that ethical and moral statements all vary from person to person, and both opinions are equally valid because everybody has their own morals that they grew up to know. There is no ultimate standard of morality, according to moral relativism, and no statement or position can be considered ultimately right or wrong. After all, everybody is raised to believe in different ideas, and they have no reason to believe that their way of thinking is morally wrong. People are subject to certain moral demands, simply because it is what is accepted by the majority in the culture you are raised in. In what follows, I will argue that it is moral for someone to do what his/her culture finds morally right if they agree with those

What is Culture Relativism? Well, according to James Rachels, Cultural Relativism is a theory that implicates that there is no right or wrong way to go about things, it is all based off personal beliefs and one’s culture. With that being said, every culture has different moral codes. There are no universal truths. Different societies have different moral codes. The moral code of a society determines what is ethically right within that particular society. For example, if the moral code of a society says the action is right, then that action is right, but only within the society that goes by that standard.