Moral Order

Moral Relativism is classified under any positions concerning the differences in moral judgments between people and the culture. Moral relativism is the position that ethical or moral propositions make claims regarding cultural or personal circumstances. Moral Relativism affirms relative form of validation of moral statements but doesn’t deny them. Moral relativist typically view the ethical standards of right or wrong are culturally based and are issued to a person's individual decision. Instead of making their decision on “what is right,” decisions are based on self-interest. This procedure has a negative impact on behavior and will affected the way we treat others.

Ethical Relativism is, in fact, common goals, morals, values, traditions and ethics that cultures, small groups or societies share. Some different societies condemn individuals do to being involve in abortions, genocide, racism, sexism, torture or suicide (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S.J & Meyer, pp.45-46, Summer 1992). In certain tribes suicide, it is considered noble if one takes their life. In the

In this paper, I’m going to discuss the argument that the famous American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, has put forth regarding ‘ethical relativism’. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms and values of one's culture or society. That is, whether an action is classified as 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. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to

2. Discuss ethics in the context of relativism, psychological egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

There is no natural truth behind morality if it is engrained through society, in hopes of reaching the expectation of others. If the incentive to be accepted in a society is strong enough, it can cause many of us to do what is accepted for our own self-gain and social standing. The effect society has on others can cause them to do virtually anything. Present day situations such as society’s support of non-profit organizations such as Organ donning. Agreeing to donate your organs to a stranger in a fatal condition might seem like a great idea to many generous folks, however to many it is seen as a thankless act. The thought of someone taking your organs from your corpse may not be appealing, however when reinforced that it would save lives you have no choice but to publicly consider. The selfishness in all of us, even for a split second can determine whether you save a life or not. More importantly, the social incentive to be a generous, life saving member of society is just as balanced as moral incentives. Instinctively most people have a set in idea of morality and what is socially right and wrong. This is seen as a moral incentive however; I believe that morality can be disguised as social pressure. If you have been told your whole life what is wrong and right, to help people or to hurt

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.

Our morals are what defined the line between deviant behaviour and non-deviant behaviour. We get our morals from: family, friends, the way we are brought up and where we have lived through out our lives. Everybody might not have the same morals but we all have a clear perception towards what is and isn’t acceptable in the public eye.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

Ethical relativism encouraged the view that we should be tolerant of other cultures even if their practices seem abhorrent to us, as it is their own beliefs. Relativists believe we have no right to questions the practices and beliefs of other cultures. Objectivists, however, attempt to establish a set of values and rules based on what they consider basic moral principles that affect all

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.

However, advocate moral relativism, when different cultures or personal conflict of fundamental ethical principles, we have no

Referring to morality from an individual point of view, each person has strong beliefs about what is wrong and what is right. Moreover, morals differ from person to person and may be due to difference in culture. Morality also results from basic human emotions i.e. love, hate, honesty, greed, sins etc (Psychology Today).

In this paper I will discuss Cultural Relativism and argue that the cultural difference argument is not a sound one, because its premise does not prove or disprove its conclusion. Further, I will use this to prove that morals can be objectively true and do not have to change on a culture to culture basis. Cultural Relativism theorizes the nature of morality and whether moral truths are correct even if they are not agreed on across all cultures.

Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and