Example Of Protagorean Relativism

According to Mosser (2013) "Relativism is the idea that one's beliefs and values are understood in terms of one's society, culture, or even one's own individual values."

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.

Pope Benedict once said, “We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” When discussing the idea of Moral Relativism there are conflicting arguments as to if it is true in society or not. As much as Americans wish to ignore it, and although it has negative as well as positive effects, moral relativism is apparent all over the world. Moral Relativism is true and relevant today through individuals and cultures.

A relativist believes that truth does not pose the same universal definition for all persons, places, and times; this truth is every changing. As a culture we are constantly and consistently evolving. People are adopting new principles and accepting new norms every single day. Does this mean that new versions of truth are to be espoused to project the adaptation of our culture? An individual relativist would say that it is your right to decide. They believe that individuals should decide for themselves what is moral and immoral. What one person says is right, the other may argue is wrong, and vice versa. All beings are created equal and no one has any right to judge or look down upon the other. Their version of truth is constructed by a man’s idea, it is different for every person, and it is unknowable and changes frequently. There are issues to this revelation, as you could conclude. On a relative note, there is the current conflict of homosexuality and its legalization. Recently, our nation has adopted the principle that homosexuals are legally allowed to marry in any state. This decision was made by our Supreme Court, but that does not mean that every individual agrees with the ruling. In fact, most of our nation disagrees with it. Before the Supreme Court ruling, only 11 out of our 50 states passed the law by legislative or voter action, without judicial interference.

Ethical relativism states “there is no universal right and wrong”, and no matter what decision I will come to, will have consequences to my actions (Kottler & Shepard, 2015). We have several students here at our

In his essay “Who’s to Judge?” by Louis Pojman, he links ethnocentrism to relativism as “an uncritical belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own culture”, and states that “what is good in our culture could be wrong in another.” He also raises a point against moral relativism. In this paper I will summarize the arguments and thoughts provoking Pojman to take his position in this examination of “who’s to judge what is right or wrong?”

Relativism makes sense to people because the culture does not talk about a standard of truth. The youth of today are shown relativism and relativism is such an easy concept for imperfect people, which is everyone, to accept. Relativism can be accepted so easily because how people value emotions and feelings over truth that is frowned upon and looked at as rules or restrictions. Emotions and feelings are not gauge for truth. That is the truth. American culture loves to show that emotions and feelings are what they should base decisions on. They encounter experiences where someone calls them out for something that they did wrong and if they feel what they did was ok with them, they should not be told it was wrong. “What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me.” That is the code of

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

This essay is one of many highlighted pieces of work in The Ethical life book by Russ shafer-Landua. Harry Gensler is the creator of this essay; he presents and evaluates cultural relativism from a basis and unbiased perspective. He does this by having two characters that take on the two opposing views, which are cultural relativism and objectivism. In addition to the debate between the two characters, Gensler also helps covey the importance of these opposing views by translating it’s possible affects on the social make up in most modern societies. One excerpt from the essay “Wrong is a relative term…People who speak of

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

Cultural relativism suggests that whatever any culture does is acceptable and we must positively judge other cultures’ practices—it is “right” for them. Who am I to judge differently? Cultural relativism arises out of a concern not to impose our cultural values on other cultures. The problem with believing that all values are

Protagoras’s relativism said that morals are just social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. That our culture, conditioning, experience and biopsychology influence our values. It is impossible to form a culture free or context free belief according to Protagoras. For example, I’m from Texas, so I have a vastly different culture than a person from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Socrates concluded that the truth was relative and that knowledge is based on specific qualities of the person as in the place you were born, age, religious affliliation, and family habits. He argued that we should only accept what seems to be true at the moment. He also believed that each culture only believes that it’s ways are best, but the person who is studying

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).

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.

In the last part of the course, we studied different forms of relativism and how they can be applied to morality. Relativism is in contrast to the universal laws that we studied when we were studying Kant’s Groundwork earlier in the semester. Instead, relativism makes the claim that there are no universal laws that can be applied to morality because every point of view is equally valid and therefore nothing can be said to be morally right or wrong. What we perceive to be right or wrong is based on our own perception and is shaped by our cultural upbringing (Drogalis, Lecture, March 31). In this paper I intend on describing the three kinds of relativism and demonstrating how they can be applied in a real world context. I will then focus on normative relativism in particular and describe two arguments in support of normative relativism as well as three arguments in opposition to normative relativism. I will wrap up the paper by summarizing why I believe normative relativism seems to be incorrect when applied to morally complex circumstances.