Is Ethical Relativism Still Relevant Today?

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).

Relativism is the concept which show that there is no absolute truth in morality, only the truth that particular individual or cultures happen to believe. In other words, the definition of moral depends on a person’s culture, society or his or her group of people. If you believe in relativism, then you think different people can have different views about the question: what is moral and immoral? Likewise, everyone have to choose upon his or her ethics because there are no absolutes. There are two types of relativism: cultural relativism and individual relativism. Cultural relativism stated that an action is right if that action consistent with the current, collective, cultural, consensus and the prevailing opinion of society. Cultural is the highest standard, and there is even no such thing is human rights if this theory is right. Cultural relativism is sometimes inappropriate in many aspects of our lives; for example: food, clothes or driving rules are not of the same kind within cultures. Similarly, individual relativism is when one person decides their own ethics; for example : if one person has a father and one day that person hear the new that that person’s dad die, he or she has to come to his or her dad’s funeral because that person think or know that is the right thing to do. Either way, cultural and individual relativism are both considered as moral beings. In general, they have to suffer the same problems. The first one is logical problem.

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 is the idea that deciding if an action is right or wrong depends on ones own societal normality. The practice of medicine demonstrates this principal. A doctor in one country may see giving a handshake as a welcome as right while in other countries this may not be considered the same.

He accepted and obeyed the law to the best of his ability. He acknowledges the fate of his children and yet he does not sound reluctant to be put to death even for the sake of his children. He refuses to escape because it would break the law. His lack of concern about the future welfare of his children shows gross negligence. Socrates shows that he is self-absorbed and more interested in how the people of Athens

Socrates was a man who believed that is was immoral for him to escape his sentence because he had accepted the ruling of the courts. And for him to escape he would be sending the wrong message to his peers. He would be telling them that all of his ideals and believes really had no meaning to him and

I believe that the Socrates general reason for making all his claim in my opinion is because he was tired of people living the lazy life and not going beyond their ability to attain the best to their ability. Socrates was put on trial for many things; he did it through his endless and circular Socratic dialogues. He would abide by the law and did not even try to persuade the jury he was not guilty (Scott 38). Thus, abiding to the law is not an option, but an obligation for all of

Socrates rational could therefore bring a lasting effect to the people’s loyalty to the laws and how they are adhered to now and in the future. Hence Socrates was looking out for the betterment of the Polis. By not adhering to the imposed judgement he would be bring an injustice to the State which he has dedicated his life and service to.

3. The most important information in this article are the values that Socrates demonstrates. Socrates has the opinion that the injustices with his trial and execution are less important than maintaining the integrity of Athens’ laws. These personal values are Socrates’ reasons for not escaping.

Relativism is the position that all points of view are pretty much as considerable and the individual makes sense of what is certifiable and relative for them. Relativism surmises that truth is various for unmistakable people not simply that assorted people acknowledge differing things to be legitimate. While there are relativists in science and number juggling, moral relativism is the most generally perceived blend of relativism. Practically everyone has heard a relativist trademark:

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

Throughout his trial in Athens and when facing execution, Socrates solidly stuck beside his belief that “life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (Apology, 38a). Socrates deeply believed in philosophy. He spent his whole life seeking wisdom through moral and political questions and even when addressing a jury with the possibility of execution looming over him he declared “I shall never stop practicing philosophy and exhorting you and indicating the truth for everyone” (Apology, 29d). The truth and the means of finding it were the most important thing to Socrates. Even though questioning was Socrates’ way to achieve power, he still believed in following the law. Practicing free speech and resisting political tyranny are not harmful as long as they fall within the constraints of the law. In explaining to Crito why escaping execution was not an option, Socrates questions Crito saying, “Do you imagine that a city can continue to exist and not be turned upside down, if the legal judgements which are pronounced in it have no force but are nullified and destroyed” (Crito, 50b). In refusing to escape his death sentence Socrates proves his

Two main types of ethical relativism are cultural relativism and normative ethical relativism. Cultural relativism says that there are different cultures and they always have different ways of thinking behaving and learning from the generation before, and this can be seen in daily life just by how different countries do things like music, dress, and even politics. Normative ethical relativism says that there is no universal right or wrong in the universe instead it says that what is right or wrong is different from society to society and that there is no

Cultural relativism means the exact opposite of ethnocentrism. It can be summed up as believing that “all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are completely relative to the individual within a cultural identity” (www.cultural-relativism.com). This means that there is no definite “right” or “wrong”, but rather an ever-changing set of values for each separate culture.

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