Moral Relativism And Moral Morality

Culture is the Backbone of a society, when something/someone tries to alter it or go against it everyone will notice. In this issue pointed out by Ruth Macklin, we look at the problems that can arise when an individual’s culture and autonomy clash. Every year there at least 30 million immigrants from all over the world that move to the United states of America, making America one of the most culturally diverse country in the world. Keeping this in mind, we will focus on Ruth Macklin’s issue of Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles. Critics argue that we associate culture with a society, community and or family, but rarely with a single individual, thus placing it above the individual person. In this paper we are going to look at four different scenarios on from Ruth Macklin’s article.

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

Jesse Prinz is a man who defends moral relativism as opposed to moral objectivism. To be able to understand the argument between moral relativism and moral objectivism they must first be defined. Moral relativism is a claim that is only true or false relative to some variable and not absolutely. This variable could be things such as culture, place, or society. This means two different truths that contradict each other could both be considered true depending on the culture. Moral objectivism is a claim that is either true or false absolutely. This means no matter the time, place, or culture there is one certain moral truth. This makes answering moral questions easier because there is a moral fact that is the correct answer. I will go into detail and explain why Prinz defends moral relativism. Because I do not think Prinz gives a strong argument, I will then criticize Prinz’s argument, giving reasons why moral objectivism is the more logical of the two because it gives us one correct answer based off of a universal standard.

An individual’s ability to establish concepts of right and wrong based upon societal conventions and independent thought is the philosophy of moral relativism. Nathaniel Hawthorne explores this philosophy in The Scarlet letter to connect the understanding of sin to Puritan society and the inevitable hypocrisy that comes with uniform principles. Hawthorne uses tone and diction to reveal the concept of sin in relation to moral relativism, proving the improbability of establishing uniform morality that Puritan society attempts to achieve. Hawthorne’s depiction of Hester’s role in society reveals that her morality derived from her alienation from the Puritan community, thus altering her perception of sin. After Hester and Dimmesdale propose

In "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong, which presents the platform for a heated debate to arise as to whether this notion is right or wrong. In the context of modern society, relativism has always had a place, especially in the forming of societal and behavioral norms to which those in a certain society are expected to comply. However, on a smaller individual level, relativism is in fact relative from person to person with a set standard of behavior impossible to comply with on an overarching level. In essence, for every good-natured altruistic person exists another who is selfish and cruel, which makes some issues that many find "morally wrong" deemed acceptable in the minds of this minority. In viewing Goodman's case for relativism, and in applying this understanding to several real-world moral issues, one can come to understand that certain actions are inherently wrong, but there exists a selection of actions that can be debated both ways.

1. Identify at least three possible moral dilemmas or concerns associated with this experiment. Discuss why you believe these may be a problem or concern.

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.

The validity of realism in metaethics exists based on the fact that humans have certain physical attributes that occur as a reaction of how we act—we have physical reactions when something morally wrong occurs. More specifically, the human anatomy responds negatively to unethical activities. For example, the idea of lying is prima facie ethically wrong according to realism; telling the truth is objectively ethical. This is proven to be true based on the human body alone; it naturally reacts when we lie by raising our heart

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.

Protagoras is one of the leading Sophists and is most famous for the saying “Man is the measure of all things; of those that are, that they are, of those that are not, that they are not.” His statement claims that all truths are relative to the individual who hold them and that there is no absolute truth. Judgements and truths change from one person to another as the environment, the norms, and the culture change. According to Protagoras, even morality is relative and the truth of moral judgments is limited to the context in which they are affirmed. In other words, moral relativism is the view that moral judgements are true or false only relative to a particular society, situation or individual. Therefore, there is no universal principle

Moral realism can be defined as what is real, exists and reflects the moral standard of the culture that is making a reference to what is real and what is moral. To understand the term, we must break it down to the varying parts and ask what is moral and what is real. Moral beliefs are not universal. They are not even universal in a culture. Customs and beliefs passed down through generations help form belief systems defining moral standards and realism. Asking the question about what is moral will evoke different responses within a group, culture, subculture or nation.

On the perfectionist account there exists an established categorization of the moral status of conscious persons or beings. The moral perfectionist maintains that morality is hierarchical, which is to say that they hold that differentially weighted considerations should be given to different beings depending on the level to which they possess certain characteristics. For example, throughout the history of western philosophy one of the most popularly touted of the characteristics of higher order moral agents has been the possession of formal language. Consider, then, the non-human animal from this perspective - from a Heideggarian perspective, if you will. According to Heidegger (2001), the Animal does not die; it merely perishes and is,

Moral relativists believe that no one has the right to judge another individuals choice, decisions, or lifestyle because however they choose to live is right for them. In addition everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs and to impose those beliefs on another individual is wrong. At first glance moral relativism may appear ideal in allowing for individual freedom. After all why shouldn’t each individual be entitled to their own idea of moral values and why should others force their beliefs on anyone else. “American philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), tells us, what is right is only what the individual thinks is right. There is no higher court of appeals, no higher, universal, or absolute moral

Cultural and ethical relativisms are widely used theories that explain differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Morality deals with individual character and the moral rules that are meant to govern and limit one’s character. On the other hand Ethics is somewhat interchangeable with morals, but it actually defines the principles of right conduct, thus to some extent, enlarging its scope to a societal or communal level. Ideally, ethics play a vital role in determining the dos and don’ts when dealing with the society. This essay will discuss what ethical realism is, analyzing why ethical relativism is unsound and unreliable in relation to the relevant evidence and literature, providing valid reason to ascertain why this is the case.