Moral Relativism Analysis

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

According to moral relativism, there are no guidelines as to what is considered right or wrong, therefore we are unable to judge one’s beliefs. The two types of relativism are individual and cultural. Individual relativism is the view that each person creates their own standards, while cultural relativism is that the societies create moral standard which are authoritative over the people. The founder of relativism, Protagoras, said “man is the measure of all things- of all things that are, and of things that they are not.” This ideally means that each person sets their own standards of truth by their own judgements. Moral relativism is practically the idea that a given thing is based upon the perception from which it is viewed.

Moral Relativism refers to the general belief that it is wrong to declare one culture superior to another culture. The corporations must acknowledge and respect the moral and cultural values of different culture in which they operate and should not impose one culture of a society on another (Bernstein, 2011).

Cultural ethical relativists believe that morality is dependent on the culture the individual is involved with. While physical laws are universally accepted, morals are objective depending on where someone lives or who they grew up around. Furthermore, morality is formed based on the history of political and social instances in cultural ethical relativism. This theory of cultural ethical relativism is widely accepted throughout the world. It is so popular because there is empirical evidence that shows that culture’s morals differ through certain parts of the world or different religions. While one culture might consider something to be moral, a different culture might consider the same exact thing to be immoral. An example of this involves

The ethical relativism theory is that morality refers to the norms of a culture. This means that whether an action is right or wrong is dependent on the moral norms of the society it is practiced in. The same action may be morally right in one society, but morally wrong in a different one.

This essay will be examining Gilbert Harman’s paper “Moral Relativism”. Harman stands behind and explores the implications of moral relativism within his paper. In particular, this essay will be picking out a specific argument, the consequences of aforementioned argument, and will then fight for or against the argument. Harman does not stray too far from moral relativism in the traditional sense within his arguments, but what he centres his idea of moral relativism upon is what this paper will be examining. Harman states that “There is no single true morality. there are many different moral frameworks, none of which is more correct than the others.” taken face value this idea of equality of values, makes a lot of sense and seems like the most tolerant and rational way of thinking. Yet, once you dive into the implications and consequences of this idea, I argue that it is not rational, ideal, or as tolerant as it may seem. There are two major consequences of Harman’s idea.

Believing in relativism means that you believe different people can have different point of views about what is moral or immoral. Focusing in cultural relativism, is the idea that an individual's belief, values and practices should be understood given that person’s culture rather than to judge against a criteria of the other. In other words, the belief that morality is created collectively only by groups of people and morality at the whole is different from culture to culture. For example, many things in our daily lives such as food, language, rules and social norms are different within different cultures. Cultural relativism is not judging a culture to what our culture's standards of what is right or wrong, instead we should understand different cultures in its own cultural context. For example, instead of thinking, “eating grasshoppers are gross” we should instead think, “why do cultures such as china eat grasshoppers?”. You may learn that grasshoppers and many other insects are rich in protein and easy to farm. You have no right to judge or punish anybody in a relativistic society. What is right or wrong is defined by socialization. All over the world

Different people may have different moralities as reflected in the way they act and the ways they react to the actions of others. However, there is no objective way to show that one of these moralities is a legitimate one. An explanation of what a morality is and what it is to have a said morals might resemble an explanation of what a language is and what it is to use certain words of that language. However, moral relativism is not an acceptable claim about how to understand moral judgments of other

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 states that our moral judgments are based on our culture. There are no standpoint that is uniquely privileged over all others. The main idea about this theory is that different cultures have different moral values, so there are no universal

Moral relativism puts forth the idea that all morals are relative to the culture or particular beliefs of an individual. To those that hold this concept as a fundamental value-yea, even a moral-it is wrong and judgmental for one segment of society to condemn any other different segment of society because of differing morals.

In the article “Moral Relativism Defended,” Gilbert Harman argues for moral relativism in that, when an agreement is reached, morality becomes apparent in accordance with an understanding of one another. Ultimately, Harman molds his “logical” thesis towards one title within his relativism “inner judgments” (page 36) in morally absorbing what constitutes a right or wrong judgment while also considering all aspects of a situation implying reason to an individual and affirmation from society, for example. Defending these moral judgments relates to motivating and changing attitudes of which procure from an agreement, in other words, a form of the term moral relativism. Overall a case against judgments rationally defending what someone a part of society should or should not do and how moral judgments can be established through intentions, goals, and mere desires.

When it comes to prescribing the medication, the physician is the one who decides what the best course of action is. Although typically “most patients have received a prescription for an oral dosage of a barbiturate (pentobarbital or secobarbital), and beginning in 2015, a phenobarbital/chloral hydrate/morphine sulfate/ethanol mix has also been used” (Death with Dignity 2017.) Additionally, these prescriptions are not free and can cost anywhere from $400 to $600 depending on what medication is used. Although the prices for these medications have increased because of the European Union ban on exports to the United States of the liquid form of pentobarbital. This ban exists because it was being used for capital punishment which is “illegal and deemed

Cultural relativism also based on the concept that believes and values in one culture may consider as immoral while in another culture they may seem as moral. Fundamentally, the cultural relativism is the opinion that morality and ethics are culture dependent. There is huge diversity found between what is right or wrong among different cultural activities which ultimately originated the cultural relativism concept around the whole world. This term is widely accepted by all

Moral relativism can be the view that at least some moral statements have truth values that are relative to the standards of a speaker or assessor (Brogaard, 2012, 538). Dobson defines moral relativism as fighting for what is true. Not running away from the issues, but running too the issues to speak biblical truth for what is just and true.