Examples Of Conflicting Views Of Truth

Moral Relativism is classified under any positions concerning the differences in moral judgments between people and the culture. Moral relativism is the position that ethical or moral propositions make claims regarding cultural or personal circumstances. Moral Relativism affirms relative form of validation of moral statements but doesn’t deny them. Moral relativist typically view the ethical standards of right or wrong are culturally based and are issued to a person's individual decision. Instead of making their decision on “what is right,” decisions are based on self-interest. This procedure has a negative impact on behavior and will affected the way we treat others.

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."

Moral Relativism is defined as the belief that conflicting moral beliefs are true. This carries the impression that what you respect as a right behavior may be a right conduct for you, but not for me. Moral Relativism is an attempt to

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.

That last part is what starts the conflict between the two sets of thinking. One believes in one true answer and anyone who opposes their beliefs is wrong. The other and believes it depends on the situation and the person, and no one holds the right to tells someone else what is moral or unmoral. For a clear reason, people of the opposite mindset do not get along or agree on almost anything. There are a few things like rape were both sides can agree it is evil, and should not be committed, but situations like these are few and far in-between. For situations like abortion, the two disagree. Absolutists believe abortion is evil and should never be done under any circumstance. While relativists believe it is the choice of the woman and acceptable to have an abortion. Due to this Absolutists will argue and claim abortion is wrong due to their belief of their view being the only correct option, and in return, the relativists argue due to their believes that morality and situations such as this have no true answer but should be decided only by the person or persons

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.

Being a relativist means that morality is based on each

Foremost, it is important to understand the true nature of moral absolutism, as many misconceptions and lack of understanding about the viewpoint have led people towards relativism. William B. Irvine compares absolutism to mathematics, where right and wrong answers are absolute, and immoral actions are wrong regardless of cultural differences. (Irvine, 2000). In many cases,

Ethical relativist deny any objective moral values. Cultural relativism explains that in different times and in different places people act in different ways; they acquire different values and ideas of what is morally right and wrong. Moral relativism explains that there are no moral absolutes; everyone can do what they please and how they want whenever they like.

Schick and Vaughn (2010: 354) defines cultural relativism as follows “ is the doctrine that what makes an action right is that it’s approved by one’s culture “ in terms of cultural relativism what is good or right is determined by the majority in the society, when something is disapproved by the society it is regarded as wrong and the minority's who may thing something is wrong they do not have a say if the majority has ruled over the matter. Cultural relativism does not allow individuals to make their own decisions regarding wether they think something is right or wrong, it takes away their freedom to makes their own decisions about what works for them as individuals.

Journal #11 Ethical Frameworks Directions: In your journal, define the following positions, outline criticisms/ counterclaims, and then evaluate from your perspective. Moral Relativism: Diversity Argument: It wasn’t long ago that people really started becoming aware of the essence of moral diversity. It was discovered that affiliates of different cultures very often have completely different beliefs about what is considered wrong and what is considered right and usually act according to their beliefs.

Before diving into the arguments for and against moral relativism, it is important to define some key terms including morality, cultural diversity, and tolerance. David Fisher, a Teaching Fellow at King’s College, London defines morality in his book, Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-first Century?. “Morality is thus neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Cultural diversity is simply the existence of various cultures in society. Tolerance is just the ability to accept something that you would not normally agree with.

Moral absolutism can be justified, but only partly. I think that humanity should follow a certain set of rules, like “Do not kill” and “Do not steal.” However, certain situations could arise that

There are three types of relativism as described by Richard Brandt in his paper Ethical Relativism. The first is descriptive relativism, which is actually a theory that simply states that there is a disagreement about morality between people (Brandt, 25). An example of descriptive relativism is cultural relativism, which states that cultures disagree on morality (Brandt, 25). This is considered a state of fact and is merely