Examples Of Ethical Relativism In The United States

James Rachels claims that morality is absolute. In his article Mortality is Not Relative, he discusses the fallacies of Cultural Relativism as well as the Cultural Differences Argument. Rachels believes that all cultures have some values in common and that there is way less disagreement between them than it seems. He brings up the example of the Eskimo’s and how they choose to kill the infants that they cannot take care of, “The Eskimo’s values are not all that different from our values. It is only that life forces upon them choices that we do not have to make” (Rachels). Another example of this would be how in some cultures it is wrong to eat cows because they believe that the souls of their ancestors and deceased are reincarnated into the cow. In our culture we would not eat our grandparents either, the only difference is we do not believe that they become cows, thus we would have no problem eating cows. “Now do we want to say that their values are different than ours? No, the difference lies elsewhere. The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values” (Rachels).

Morality exists throughout all cultures and religions of the world in some shape or form. In

Moral relativism explains plenty of cultural differences. It allows different societies to have different standards of rightness and validates them. John Ladd details, “[as a result,] whether or not it is right for individuals to act a certain way depends on the society to which they belong” (31). He concludes that there is no absolute or universal moral standard by which all men abide by. By combining the diversity thesis (each culture is different) and the dependency thesis (people act differently dependent of

Ethics are the product of a society’s culture so it is natural there will be different responses to similar ethical scenarios. Beekum, Stedam, and Yamamura (2003) suggest these differing conclusions will lead to conflict where one side perceives the outcome is ethical whereas the other does not. Another possible outcome is that one side may not even see a decision even being morally significant. Global organizations have the additional challenge when operating within a multi-national environment of recognizing cultural differences while maintaining a core moral and ethical foundation.

Intervening in a town, state, or country has its ups and downs. What you think would benefit the country might make the country more in turmoil. You do not know how they live, what they go through on a daily basis, or what they beliefs are. Some people might welcome you with open arms, while others will do the opposite.

In the article, “Some Moral Minima,” Lenn E. Goodman raises the question, “if it is true that no norm can be made absolute unless some other is compromised, are there no rules that tell us that principles are principles – no norms delineating concretely, and uncompromisingly, wrong from right?” (Goodman, 2010) Goodman goes on to state that the areas singled out in this article are not comprehensive of every consideration to which humans are due; he asserts that these are just some of the practices that should never be considered as options.

Different culture has many different moral values. Universali we don't agree what is wrong or wrong, each individual is right to have moral value. No statement can be considered absolutely wrong and right. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." which is right for you but not for me. For example, I and my friend went to buy a t-shirt. I tried the shirt and I did not like the shirt so I went back and put the shirt back in the same shelf that I took it from because I believe this

Between Stace and Benedict’s arguments I was able to narrow them down to the main points of ethical absolutism and relativism. I believe that Benedict’s argument towards ethical relativism is more accurate in our world today. Morality and the judgment of right and wrong can differ because of religious reasons, the culture you were brought up in, or who you were brought up by. There is no one moral structure standing that people of all cultures and society believe in. Morality can vary based on the culture, society, and the individual. For example some cultures and religions find homosexuality as immoral while others believe it is perfectly acceptable. Another example is that some believe killing is seen as completely immoral no matter what, but others find that killing is immoral except for certain occasions. I believe that it is nearly impossible to assume that all people of

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.

For the people who adhere to ethical relativism, morality is subjective and is shaped by our culture and the experiences that we have throughout our life. An example of ethical relativism would be if I grew up in a Christian family, I will absorb Christian values, while if I grew up in a Atheist family I will absorb atheistic values. Thus what I may find to be morally acceptable as a Christian is on no different level and is equally valid as an atheist despite what difference may have. For the ethical relativist morality typically is explained through natural selection, so the reason we experience morality is because it must help us survive. I believe a good quote by Richard Dawkins sums up this school of thought well, "blind physical forces

It accounts for the wide variety of ethical beliefs held by various cultures, religions, and individuals (MacKinnon 19-20). Everyone appears to be covered by relativism regardless of how odd their moral beliefs may seem to the more prevalent societies. In addition, ethical relativism touts its versatility when compared to ethical realism. As Barbara MacKinnon notes, “The situations and living worlds of different people vary so much that it is difficult to believe that the same things that would be right for one would be right for another” (20). Consider this against ethical realism’s absolute ethical values which to the relativist may appear uncompromising and apathetic to the unique situations of mankind. It’s no wonder relativists hold their theory above realism, but is it as good as it

Cultural relativism is the concept that morality is based upon culture, “[…] there are sometimes differing moral standards and practices in various cultures” (Hollinger, 2002, Kindle Locations 212-218). Morals are not universal, practices are accepted or rejected by the individual culture and change as the culture changes.

Moral absolutism refers to the belief that some of the moral rules are binding on each person, notwithstanding the differences in cultures (May, 2003). The majority of people usually support this notion based on the values and ideas of their culture. They hold the view that there ought to be a set of principles that safeguards and governs all people. Nonetheless, others assert that values can be accepted in one of the cultures but rejected in another. This is based on the notion that moral principles are different across the various cultures. In this paper, I shall assert that there are no moral absolutes.

Cultural and ethical relativisms are widely used theories that explain differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Morality deals with individual character and the moral rules that are meant to govern and limit one’s character. On the other hand Ethics is somewhat interchangeable with morals, but it actually defines the principles of right conduct, thus to some extent, enlarging its scope to a societal or communal level. Ideally, ethics play a vital role in determining the dos and don’ts when dealing with the society. This essay will discuss what ethical realism is, analyzing why ethical relativism is unsound and unreliable in relation to the relevant evidence and literature, providing valid reason to ascertain why this is the case.

Different societies have different moral codes. Cultural relativism claims that ethics is relative to individuals, groups, cultures and societies. Relativism resists universal moral normal. The moral code of society determines what is right or wrong in that society. There’s no objective standard that can be used to judge one’s society code against another. Its arrogant to judge others cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. Cultural relativism for many people is a response to the complexity of moral issues and the number of different responses various. Groups our cultures have given to moral issues so for many when we look at just how different cultures have responded two different issues the way different cultures. All this diversity that there seems to be a response where we want to say well, maybe there isn 't some sort of absolute right or wrong maybe morality really is just relative to a different group that different people believe different things. In this paper, I will discuss the aspect of my culture from an outside perspective and discuss another culture from an inside perspective. In sociology, the principle is sometimes practiced to avoid cultural bias in research, as well as to avoid judging another culture by the standards of one 's own culture. For this reason, cultural relativism has been considered an attempt to avoid ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism is related to but often distinguished from moral relativism, the view that morality is relative to