Moral Relativism : Moral, Relativism, And Moral Appraiser Relativism

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.

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

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

Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

In chapter 19 of the philosopher, Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, he presents an overview of the moral theory of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the view that there is some moral truth and that truth is relative to each person or culture. The overarching moral principle can be broken down into ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. The difference being ethical subjectivism says an act is morally acceptable or forbidden if an individual approves or disapproves of the action. And cultural relativism relies on the judgment of morally acceptable or forbidden if a culture or society approves or disapproves of the action (Shafer-Landau, p. 295).

Schick and Vaughn (2010: 354) defines cultural relativism as follows “ is the doctrine that what makes an action right is that it’s approved by one’s culture “ in terms of cultural relativism what is good or right is determined by the majority in the society, when something is disapproved by the society it is regarded as wrong and the minority's who may thing something is wrong they do not have a say if the majority has ruled over the matter. Cultural relativism does not allow individuals to make their own decisions regarding wether they think something is right or wrong, it takes away their freedom to makes their own decisions about what works for them as individuals.

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, Cultural Relativism, and Ethical Absolutism Ethical relativists argue that what is morally right or wrong may vary in fundamental way from person to person or from culture to culture. In other words, as Robert Arrington (1983) argues, we cannot simply say that a moral judgement is true for all purposes, persons, and cultures-we can assert only that it is true for a particular person or social group. Cultural relativism is a form of relativism that claims that moral beliefs and practices vary from culture to culture. It is important to understand, however that cultural relativists do not argue that certain acts or practices are right or wrong in a particular culture.

Moral relativism is becoming a greater part of society everyday. Since the idea of relativism states that nothing is absolute, the concepts of right and wrong are hazy. People are questioning their morals and wondering what they should believe, but in reality, no one knows. Moral absolutes do not exist in moral relativism. People are able to believe whatever they want, but they are not allowed to express their morals as fact.

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.

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

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.

Moral relativism is the philosophy where things such as ethics, morals and positions of right and wrong are subject to one's own beliefs; this philosophy eliminates all objective truths. Slowly but surely, society is turning into a moral relativistic society where everyone is free to create their own truth based on how they feel. For example, an objective truth would be "The killing of innocent life is wrong," but a moral relativist could just as easily say, "I feel that killing

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