Explanations Of Ethical Relativism

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

I do not believe that relativism would work as a universal theory. Everybody has their own morals and beliefs. What one individual believes is right may be completely different from what another individual might believe. Relativism may work as a universal theory within certain cultures and societies but not likely among individuals. There are certain cultures that share the same customs and beliefs but individuals from different cultures may have completely different views of what is right or wrong. Supporters of ethical relativism believe that there is no universal beliefs that

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

Ethical relativism and ethical objectivism, what are they and how have we come understand them in our time? These two topics have been a center point for many arguments weather you actually talk about it or not. As much as we like to argue in this world in our daily lives we fail to see what stance we hold. This might be because we aren’t educated enough to realize it or it just might be because we don’t care. We will be discussing the differences between ethical relativisms and ethical objectivism so we can get a better grasp and understanding of these two topics. Ethical relativism is mainly based on what the individual person or society believe. It is what they see as morally right and wrong. Ethical objectivism is the view that some moral

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.

The first main claim that relativists seem to make is that “different societies have a different moral code”(Rachels, 2014). They also state that “there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than the other” (Rachels, 2014). This implies that no one moral viewpoint is better or worse than the other. This leads to them saying that there is no “universal truth”(Rachels, 2014) when it comes to ethics which means that there is no universal moral standard applicable to people throughout history. Their final major claim is that due to different cultures having different values “the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society”(Rachels, 2014) meaning that certain acts can be permissible in societies if their moral code says its acceptable.

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.

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.

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.

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture. All depending on society, but it is about whether an action is right or wrong. “The only moral standards against which a society’s practices can be judged are its own” (Manuel Velasquez). Another sense of relativism is cultural relativism which is based on different cultures differ on basic moral principles. Now, a relativist will use unethical words. They would confuse cultural relativism with ethical relativism. They will sometimes state that right or wrong have no consistent

Ethical relativism is an individual or group of peoples’ morality based on one’s society or culture. In reality, as we all know all society has diverse moral values. Circumstances which are viewed as appropriate from one societal view might not be ideal in the view of different societies. Along these lines, with regards to specific circumstances, ethical relativism can only be meaningful to the individual or a group of people in the way they view it. Contingent upon how they see the circumstance and there is no guarantee if different people would see it a similar way. This makes me agree with ethical relativism.

The objective of this essay is to provide reasons as to why normative ethical relativism provides an unattractive view on the nature of morality and why it should be rejected. In order to see this negative relationship, this essay will identify three features of this theory that makes it problematic.

“Ethical relativism theory believes there is no universal accepted ethical standard and no objective right or wrong.”( Velasquez, M.August, 1992)Morality or what is considered right or wrong depends on the moral norms of society and can only be judged on its own. An actions that may be morally right in one society many not be considered morally right to another, albeit the practices may be different their fundamental moral principles are the same. This does not imply that all practices are relative. There are local customs regarding dress attire along with government customs whereas torture is governed by a universal moral standard. The underlying reason for the beliefs or practices helps us understand that universal moral standards can exist even if moral practices and beliefs are different between cultures. “The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.” (Velasquez, M.August, 1992) Ethical relativism does not recognize that some societies are less developed. Velasquez, M.August, 1992

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.