Moral Judgement And Moral Relativism Essay

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

There are disadvantages to having a presence of moral relativism. There is a chance that people will abuse their power to have individual perceptions of right and wrong. Since each culture has their own

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

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

Cultural relativism refers to the view that ethical systems or moral actions that are perceived to vary across cultural diversity are all equal and valid and as such, no one culture is better than the other is. For instance, by taking how words are used in one culture to mean a thing, the same words may be employed in a different culture to mean another thing. Another example is prayer announcements in Saudi Arabia can be heard from far distance which legal. Even if that may disturb your neighbors who are not Muslims. However, in United States such thing is illegal and consider a noise violation.

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.

The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these

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.

For instance, in America, it is not uncommon to see a child spanked for misbehaving or disobeying his or her parent. However, in Sweden, this action is not only illegal, not also frowned upon. A moral relativist would explain that this is because moral facts can exist and be objective in America, but can be still objective and independent of Sweden’s morals. Lastly, disagreeing with both moral realist and relativists, moral skeptics believe there are no moral facts; all morals are equivalent to opinions, and they are different for everyone. Moral skepticism says that all morals are simply rules created to control humans and their behaviors. For example, the moral skeptic would argue that the reason controversy exists over issues such as abortion is that each person has opinions that are independent of others. Skeptics would also say that there are no right answers to moral dilemmas, because each person will come to a different conclusion.

word moral luck to describe these indescribably incidents. Moral luck, as Nagel defines it, is the aspect that people judge someone based on their actions which relies heavily on the factors beyond their control. Nagel also states that due to these circumstances that will alter the final result we should not be scrutinized for our results.

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).

Moral relativism is the philosophy that moral or ethical propositions do not represent moral truths, but are effected by the environment in person’s life. Christians have a worldview that believes otherwise based on the biblical worldview of what is right and wrong proposed by James Sire. Issues that are ethically questionable but not specifically banned in Leviticus, or in the Bible in general, such as gambling, drinking alcohol, and divorce are examples of how even seemingly unclear topics are still outlined by God. The Lord gives Christians the instinctive knowledge of right and wrong based on Scripture that does not and will never change, contradictory to the constantly evolving culture that is moral relativism.

The point of this conflict is that even within our own society, there is a

Now that both sides have been established, those stakeholders who favor and those who oppose the policy in question, each of their argument 's evidence and reasoning will be analyzed. The corresponding pages which follow will provide an understanding of each side through three developed sections: a critical analysis, moral reasoning, and a tentative solution. The critical analysis will thoroughly measure to what level an argument 's authoritative, accuracy, reliability, precision, applicability, and etc. is able to represent their claims. At the same time the critical analysis includes a judgement call on whether or not a side 'wins ' or 'loses ' each of their arguments based upon the strength and weakness of the argument 's claims and evidence. The moral reasoning section will then secondary the value of each side 's evidence, and focus on analyzing each side 's moral reasoning, or rather, evaluating what "values, obligations, consequences, and normative principles" present reasonableness to their position on morality. Following these two sections of analysis, a conclusion will be made on which of the two sides makes an overall stronger, more conclusive and moral argued solution to the normative question.

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