Moral Relativism Research Paper

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

Ethical relativism is a theory based on the belief that there are no general standards that are considered to be ethically acceptable. Ethical relativists believe that there is no actual standard of what is right or wrong. The two forms of ethical relativism are personal, or individual ethical relativism and cultural ethical relativism.

Pope Benedict once said, “We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” When discussing the idea of Moral Relativism there are conflicting arguments as to if it is true in society or not. As much as Americans wish to ignore it, and although it has negative as well as positive effects, moral relativism is apparent all over the world. Moral Relativism is true and relevant today through individuals and cultures.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 belief that there is no universal moral truth. Instead of seeking objective principles to guide their decisions, moral relativists look toward moral standards their cultural, social, historical, and personal circumstances. They do not view right and wrong as absolutes, but as personal opinions. True moral relativists have no ground to judge another person’s actions, as they believe each person has their own set of moral beliefs. Therefore, they cannot be judged as wrong if others disagree with their decisions. As Marquis de Sade, a French philosopher and politician, once said, “There is no action. . . that is truly criminal; or one that

Relativism is the theory that doesn't support universal moral right and wrong. Subjective relativism states that each persons has their own decision about the right and wrong regardless of the moral norms.

Moral relativism: Moral relativism is defined as the viewpoint of an individual on moral values, ethical standards or cultural values that individual believes in. It is subject to individual choice of a person that he believes for himself. Whether it is right or wrong is decided by himself. It is the notion which defines that there is no absolute value for right or wrong instead it is the personal opinion of an individual based on the circumstances or on the cultural orientation. It can be taken positively where it promotes tolerance or can be taken negatively by breaking law or doing something wrong. Pursuing IT as Christian vocation means God has selected you for a particular job and it is your duty to complete it and execute it in right

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds morality relative to the norms of one 's culture. Meaning, whether an action is right or wrong will depend on the moral norms of that society in which you reside. Though some actions may be viewed right in one society, it does not mean it will be morally right in another. I take the view of an ethical relativist, where there is no universal moral standards. I believe this because morality is constantly changing. Society’s beliefs, values and ideas are always evolving into something new. It brings to light the assumption that there is such a thing as moral progress. We consider ourselves more open-minded than our ancestors. They came from an era where they dealt with racism, sexism and even homophobia, just to name a few. What was labeled as wrong 20 years ago, is accepted today, and what is labeled wrong today, will probably be accepted in the future.

Presently, Americans are comfortable relating ethics to individuality. Often times, American citizens expresses their right of freedoms to enhance their own sense of ethics or relativity. In defining relativism, moral principles are a matter of personal feelings and individual preference. As for individual moral relativism, figuring out what is moral and immoral in specific circumstances differs according to the person. On another note, moral relativists have a disbelief in universal truths or common law.

Relativism argues that there’s no absolute truth. It suggest that the concept of right and wrong in any given human behavior can

Moral relativism is the belief that moral principles depends on cultural acceptance, or a subjective point of view. We get to see how subjective it can be reading Henrik Ibsen’s play, The Enemy of the People (Pojman 166). The play is about a doctor (Stockman) in a Norwegian town, who learns that the water used in the towns baths is contaminated. Dr. Stockman feels morally obligated to inform people of his findings. His brother Peter, is the town’s mayor. Peter does not think the people need to know about the water and warns his brother to keep silent. Dr. Stockman rejects his brother’s warnings. Doing so, results in the doctor becoming an outcast. I can imagine the dilemma that the doctor faced. He is aware of the revenue that the baths generate for his hometown. Yet, he is also ethically responsible as a doctor to notify citizen about the harm that the baths will cause. I was surprised at the people’s response to the doctor. He tells them the truth, but they reject it. Their actions highlight some issues of moral relativism.