Herodotus Arguments For Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism argues that what is morally right or wrong may vary in a fundamental way from person to person or from culture to culture. (Banks 2013: Pg 6). An action is deemed morally wrong or right depending on the social norms of that society. Something that may be right in one society may be seen as wrong in another society. Cultural relativism argues that every society has a different moral code explaining what acts are permitted and not permitted. (Banks 2013: pg 7). No one culture is better than one. Ethical absolutism argues that there exist an eternal and unchanging moral law, the same for all people, at all times and paces.( Holmes 1998:165). The absolutist believes that certain moral principles apply to all people everywhere and that people can recognize or discover these principles and be guided by them in deciding the nature of their own conduct and in judging the conduct of others. (Banks 2013: pg 8).

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.

The second chapter of the book covers three moral views – objectivism, relativism, and emotivism. Objectivism is the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. For example, according to an objectivist moral view torturing people is not acceptable universally. The second moral view is relativism. There are two types of relativism: cultural relativism, which approves an action if it is morally right to one’s culture; and subjective relativism – the view that an action is right if one approves of it (Vaughan 20). For example, some cultures support the sex-selective apportion, because female babies are not encouraged (Sex-Selection). If a group of people believe it is right, then

The first ethical belief that the author discusses is Cultural Relativism. It talks about the how diversity is becoming more and more apparent between different cultures worldwide. The author mentions that often customs that are unquestioningly accepted in one part of the world are considered abhorrent in another, for example: human sacrifice. Cultural Relativism claims that there are no absolute standards for moral

In chapter 19 of the philosopher, Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, he presents an overview of the moral theory of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the view that there is some moral truth and that truth is relative to each person or culture. The overarching moral principle can be broken down into ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. The difference being ethical subjectivism says an act is morally acceptable or forbidden if an individual approves or disapproves of the action. And cultural relativism relies on the judgment of morally acceptable or forbidden if a culture or society approves or disapproves of the action (Shafer-Landau, p. 295).

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.

Relativism, therefore, is a philosophical doctrine that acknowledges that truth, knowledge, and morality are not absolute. Meaning that what may be considered moral or true depends on the context such as culture and society. For this reason, moral relativists believe that different people can have different views regarding what is moral or immoral without either side being wrong or right. Therefore, right, or wrong, good or bad does not exist, as there is no universal standard for determining ethical decisions. In other words, moral values are not objective but rather subjective as they are based on the feelings, values, and preference of a person (Brogaard

Ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two types of meta-ethical views, meaning the two theories attempt to understand the reason behind ethical properties, attitudes, boundaries and judgements. Ethical universalism can be viewed as an ideal world, while ethical relativism explains a more realistic perspective on why different cultures can view the same actions differently. The two delve more into the essential meaning of a theory rather than just simply labeling actions as right or wrong.

Newsstands proclaim it. Talk shows trumpet it. Scandal, murder, and deception! People share a common disdain for these evils, scorning those who commit the dirty deeds. Laws are upheld to prevent people from doing “bad” things, but how do people come to an agreement on what is truly wrong? Even as society moves away from traditional teachings and perspectives, many acts are still universally looked down upon. Throughout history, the majority of civilizations have held surprisingly similar moral ideals regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although moral relativists believe that morality is individually determined, there is, in fact, an objective moral standard that governs all humanity, because a sense of right and wrong is universal, transcends time and culture, and is evident in the majority of people.

Rachels then describes the culturally approved infanticide among Eskimos, which is fully incomprehensible in many other cultures, yet given the facts of being one and living as an Eskimo such action is justifiable within their cultural framework. Rachels draws an image for the reader that different cultures enjoy different moral codes that are not at all practicable if the same code changed cultures. He states that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to ethics and that there are no moral truths for all people at any given time. Rachels argues that a moral act accepted in a society could be incredibly wrong and condemnable, but the involved society is finding it defendable because they have not found it objectively right or objectively wrong. In addition, he claims that being right or wrong is just a matter of opinion, and hence

Ethical behavior is different in every culture. One culture may see something as ethically right where another may see it as wrong. Moral relativism plays a role in accepting differences between cultures, even if they do not agree.

This paper will summarize and critique the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism as an ethical theory. One of the problems I find with cultural relativism is in determining which actions are good and which are bad. This is impossible because every person and culture, has a disagreeing opinion on good and bad. There isn’t one individual who can decide which morals are right and which are wrong. Cultural relativism states that correct moral standards are relative to cultures or societies (p. 293).

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).

Ethical relativism is often defined with the simple phrase: “what’s right for you is not always right for me” (Cornman and Lehrer 365). Basically, to reject that the idea that any individual ethical claim should be universally accepted results in ethical relativity (Stace 139). This position can be even further broken down into the subcategories cultural relativism, class relativism, and historical relativism, and are basically saying that ethics are relative to one’s culture, one’s social class, or

This is a doctrine that bases its arguments in the fact that there are no universal absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. Ethical relativism is a similar concept, based specifically on the ethics of a culture and how they are related to those of other cultures (Kluckhohn, 2011). Herodotus, the Greek historian advanced this view when he observed that different societies have different customs and that each person thinks that his customs are