Persuasive Essay On Absolute Relativism

Relativism is the concept which show that there is no absolute truth in morality, only the truth that particular individual or cultures happen to believe. In other words, the definition of moral depends on a person’s culture, society or his or her group of people. If you believe in relativism, then you think different people can have different views about the question: what is moral and immoral? Likewise, everyone have to choose upon his or her ethics because there are no absolutes. There are two types of relativism: cultural relativism and individual relativism. Cultural relativism stated that an action is right if that action consistent with the current, collective, cultural, consensus and the prevailing opinion of society. Cultural is the highest standard, and there is even no such thing is human rights if this theory is right. Cultural relativism is sometimes inappropriate in many aspects of our lives; for example: food, clothes or driving rules are not of the same kind within cultures. Similarly, individual relativism is when one person decides their own ethics; for example : if one person has a father and one day that person hear the new that that person’s dad die, he or she has to come to his or her dad’s funeral because that person think or know that is the right thing to do. Either way, cultural and individual relativism are both considered as moral beings. In general, they have to suffer the same problems. The first one is logical problem.

I do not believe that relativism would work as a universal theory. Everybody has their own morals and beliefs. What one individual believes is right may be completely different from what another individual might believe. Relativism may work as a universal theory within certain cultures and societies but not likely among individuals. There are certain cultures that share the same customs and beliefs but individuals from different cultures may have completely different views of what is right or wrong. Supporters of ethical relativism believe that there is no universal beliefs that

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.

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

My conclusion on moral relativism is that it can do more harm than good as “it endorses social evils” and makes it hard to attain a utopia. If one culture endorses slavery, moral relativism will have no objection. This also “promotes moral apathy”, an idea which I disagree with. (Lecture 7. Moral Relativism-

Foremost, it is important to understand the true nature of moral absolutism, as many misconceptions and lack of understanding about the viewpoint have led people towards relativism. William B. Irvine compares absolutism to mathematics, where right and wrong answers are absolute, and immoral actions are wrong regardless of cultural differences. (Irvine, 2000). In many cases,

Relativism makes sense to people because the culture does not talk about a standard of truth. The youth of today are shown relativism and relativism is such an easy concept for imperfect people, which is everyone, to accept. Relativism can be accepted so easily because how people value emotions and feelings over truth that is frowned upon and looked at as rules or restrictions. Emotions and feelings are not gauge for truth. That is the truth. American culture loves to show that emotions and feelings are what they should base decisions on. They encounter experiences where someone calls them out for something that they did wrong and if they feel what they did was ok with them, they should not be told it was wrong. “What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me.” That is the code of

Before diving into the arguments for and against moral relativism, it is important to define some key terms including morality, cultural diversity, and tolerance. David Fisher, a Teaching Fellow at King’s College, London defines morality in his book, Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-first Century?. “Morality is thus neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Cultural diversity is simply the existence of various cultures in society. Tolerance is just the ability to accept something that you would not normally agree with.

Absolutism and relativism are polar opposites in the study of morality. Relativism, in short, is something morally open to interpretation. The context of the situation determines the right or wrong thing to do. A common ethical issue is the idea of killing being justifiable. If someone were to fire a gun at me and I were also armed I would find it difficult not to return fire. Now even this scenario is highly subjective. Who is shooting at me? Why are they shooting at me? Do they know they are shooting at me? Friendly Fire? All these questions make killing in self defense such a relative concept. I believe this because my reaction to being fired upon is “relative to time, place, persons, and situations.” (p.78)

Beliefs can be flawed and because of this it allow bad things to happen. Cultural Relativism is all about beliefs and not how we should treat our fellow man and that is why it is so dangerous and harmful to

In this chapter, the author assesses the various extremes of relativism in relation to truth. Relativism, like its name indicates, is the general view that truth is relative to the eye of the beholder. When this idea is limited to a single individual it is referred to as simple relativism. Likewise, it is called postmodern relativism when this idea extends to a larger group of people, institution, or society. In general, the author is skeptical about relativism as a whole claiming that people disagree on almost everything and the idea that “true if and only if true to my own beliefs” limits the way in which people can objectively confirm the validity of their values. He also proceeds to dismiss the “crazy” belief that truth

To fully understand how objectivism supports tolerance and how relativism undermines tolerance, the three key concepts must be defined. Objectivism, when discussing the topic of ethics, is the understanding and belief that believes there is a universally accepted standard for moral behavior. In the Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis examined the moral standards of various civilizations all around the world, from ancient to current civilizations. He discovered that in multiple insistences, many civilizations believed that actions such as justice and good faith stood the tests of time and geography. Lewis’ studies stand strong for objectivism. On the other hand, relativism is the moral stance that moral standards change from culture to culture

In my research, I have found varying definitions of moral relativism, but each is based on the philosophy that morals are culturally based and are subject to individual choice. Moral relativism is the perspective that ethical and moral standards are culturally based, and therefore subject to personal, individual choice (moral-relativism.com, 2016, N.p.). In Addition, Schumacher (2008) noted, with moral relativism there are no global, absolute laws that applies to all people...noting that individual moral practices dictate one's moral position (N.p.). In contrast, moral absolutism is the belief that rules and standards

I think that disagreement between people does not justify relativism. In the opposite, these disagreements show that never the two parties might be right, only one party might be right and the other wrong which cancels the statement “all views are true”. For instance, the serial killer just had a difference of opinion with the people he killed. He wanted them to die for some reason and they did not want to die. Who is right and who is wrong? Can relativists argue that both of opinions are right in this case? Thus, disagreement obviously disproves relativism. Relativism is based on the principle that there are no absolute right and wrong. Since disagreement occurs only when two opposing opinions are facing each other and both of them feel that they are right, otherwise there will be no disagreement. Thus, disagreements refute relativism because disagreements require at least someone to be right. Unlike relativism which assumes that no party is right because all in essence is only relative. Therefore, there could never be disagreement since all is relative. The second main argument of moral relativists is tolerance. According to them, no one should judge other cultures or individuals and if you make a certain judgement, you end up being intolerant. In fact, tolerance supports objective morality and denies relative morality. If everybody

Various thoughts have been given the name “ Relativism ”, and the term has been utilized to pillory a wide range of perspectives (some of the time for good reasons , infrequently for awful ones ). It is insignificant acting to say that you are for or against "relativism" unless you say what you mean by the term. Here I need chiefly to talk about (and to condemn) a perspective I have experienced among students in theory courses, who say things like this : " What anybody accepts is valid for that individual. What you accept is valid for you? , what I accept is valid for me ?" We can call the perspective communicated in such proclamations "Relativism" in light of the fact that it denies that there is any such thing as " outright " truth, holds that all truth is with respect to the individual who trusts it.