Moral Relativism, By James Rachels

Different people have different types of arguments, depending on the situation, which may be good or not good. An argument can be defined as many things. According to Mike, who I interviewed, he interprets an argument as something being determined or evaluated that is true or false with the presence of credible research or evidence. The definition of an argument according to me, is defined as the exchange of ideas to another person that may be true, false, negative, or

In Gilbert Harman’s ‘Moral Relativism Defended’. He claims that we make inner judgements about people only if we suppose that they are capable of being motivated by relevant moral considerations (RMCs). He goes on to claim that such moral considerations present an logical ‘oddity’ if it were applied to people outside our RMCs, where he cites examples like Hitler and the employee from Murder, Incorporated to further illustrate this fact. I do not subscribe to his treatment of such examples, and I argue that the logical oddities he points out in those examples are flawed.

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.

Following the definition provided in module two, the ethical view of moral relativism basically says that anything goes in a culture, there are no moral codes that need to be universal to all people. Ethical or moral relativism states that every culture has a different view of morality, and we as humans need to respect that. Going by this explanation of moral relativism, relativists

Let's start off with moral relativism, This is the belief that that there is no right or wrong answer to anything. This being said, you can still have your own views on different subjects and or beliefs, but you will not force those views/opinions upon anyone. This is because it would go against moral relativism in that you are not going to force your views upon another individual. Moral relativism opens up a whole new world of perspective, this is good because if we had no moral relativism the whole world would go into chaos because we would see the world as if we were one of the men in the cave in the story of “Plato’s Allegory “ The men in This story only saw the shadows from a fire, only showing them a false reality about the world they

There are two major ethical theories, deontological and utilitarian. Both theories are based on moral rules. These theories attempt to justify the principles and moral rules. In every culture something is defined as either right or wrong, not just wrong or right as a whole. Every society must define what is right or wrong and no universal truths will exist across cultures, this is defined as moral relativism. What is right and what is wrong may be different to some people and it is influenced by where they live and the rules they learn. However morals refers to what is right and what is wrong to an individual’s own principles. The two major ethical theories are similar in that they both attempt to

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss

Cultural relativism says that good or bad are relative to culture and that the perspective of social acceptance is the perfect standard of morality. No culture or society is better to any different culture while comparing structures of morality. All cultural judgments are fairly reasonable and that certainty alone is relative, subject to the socializing environment. For this reason, the particular actions that are disapproved of are unacceptable. A cultural relativist claims that morals are closely related to law or another familiar aspect. What is justified in a particular culture may not be in another. They also believe that there are no objective moral requirements. Right and wrong is built upon the routines that have occurred in opposing

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

It is fair to agree with the idea of Moral Relativism. Each culture has their own views of right or wrong. Stepping into different cultures is similar to being a part of new societies, each with differing practices and ideals. There is no single definition of what is right or what is wrong. Individuals has their own opinions on separate topics and each reason for a belief is acceptable. For example, in some cultures it is important for a man to have multiple wives and women are not allowed to leave their homes without a man accompanying them. In the United States, it is not acceptable to have multiple wives and each woman has the freedom to go where ever they like whenever they please. When discussing the idea of abortion individuals have opposing views depending on what their morals are and if they believe in the life of an unborn child. While some people believe it is entirely up to the pregnant women whether they desire to abort their

There are three types of relativism as described by Richard Brandt in his paper Ethical Relativism. The first is descriptive relativism, which is actually a theory that simply states that there is a disagreement about morality between people (Brandt, 25). An example of descriptive relativism is cultural relativism, which states that cultures disagree on morality (Brandt, 25). This is considered a state of fact and is merely

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.

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 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