Relativism And Moral Nihilism

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.

Loretta Kopelman’s dissertation, Female Genital Circumcision and Conventionalists Ethical Relativism, takes a new approach in a global plight. Kopelman begins her thesis by elaborating on a particular tribe in southern Kenya. She describes how young girls are being mutilated for marriageability. Their fathers, eager for large dowries, perform the ritual on girls as young as nine. While some victims are able to escape and seek sanctuary, this obviously isn’t always possible and thus these girls must live with an inflicted deformity their whole life that doesn’t only cause serious health complications but sometimes even death.

Moral Absolutism is concerned with right and wrong behavior. The absolute is what controls whether the action or behavior is right or wrong. Therefore, from the position of moral absolute, some things are always right and some things are always wrong no matter how one try to rationalize them. Moral absolutism materializes from a theistic worldview. Ethical Absolutists can condemn practices such as the Nazi harassment of the Jews because Absolutist views give definite guidelines as to what is right and wrong.

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.

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-

The most difficult part of any modern theological debate is choosing the authority. With the variety of Christian denominations, individual thinkers, and outside influences, and it is often difficult to reach a general agreement. In her essay, “Homosexuality: A Case Study in Moral Argument,” Catholic theologian Lisa Cahill examines four major authorities and different ways to determine how they work together to produce a cohesive Christian ethic. Though she fails to give a definitive, quantifiable method of describing the interactions between the authorities, her final judgment, approval of some aspects of homosexuality, indicates that she values modern cultural context and general

Journal #11 Ethical Frameworks Directions: In your journal, define the following positions, outline criticisms/ counterclaims, and then evaluate from your perspective. Moral Relativism: Diversity Argument: It wasn’t long ago that people really started becoming aware of the essence of moral diversity. It was discovered that affiliates of different cultures very often have completely different beliefs about what is considered wrong and what is considered right and usually act according to their beliefs.

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.

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

We live in a society today that tolerates and accepts many things Catholics would classify as “gravely sinful” or “morally wrong”. The act of fornification and homosexual acts are both mortal sins that most Catholics commit. At a very young age, the principle of marital sex between a husband and wife is instilled into the minds of children. Growing up in a religious home, I was taught that sex is an important and sacred matter that only married couples could partake in. Like many others, I rejected and frowned upon pre-marital sex. However, after reading an article about a person’s experiences, I finally understood that no one should dictate your life – specifically, what you do with your body.

Newsstands proclaim it. Talk shows trumpet it. Scandal, murder, and deception! People share a common disdain for these evils, scorning those who commit the dirty deeds. Laws are upheld to prevent people from doing “bad” things, but how do people come to an agreement on what is truly wrong? Even as society moves away from traditional teachings and perspectives, many acts are still universally looked down upon. Throughout history, the majority of civilizations have held surprisingly similar moral ideals regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although moral relativists believe that morality is individually determined, there is, in fact, an objective moral standard that governs all humanity, because a sense of right and wrong is universal, transcends time and culture, and is evident in the majority of people.

In the Antebellum time period, there were four voices that carefully discussed and showed their beliefs of sex to the society. One of the voices was known as Evangelical Christianity. Christian ministers and Lyman Beecher’s, strong ideas and passionate efforts were shown to try and get society to follow their ideas of sex. In their eyes, lust was known to be a deadly sin during the Nineteenth Century (Horowitz, 8). In order for them to control society members, they expressed and advocated that if one goes against the Christian view of sex and lacks morality, then he or she will be lead to the devil (Beecher, 45). Evangelical Christianity supporters such as Lyman Beecher believed in using the church, Bible, law and institutions to control how individuals acted upon sex as well as how sex was seen in society as

Since the dawn of ancient history, man has sought to understand the inner workings of what we call morality. This morality has been viewed through different lenses and interpreted in various ways. Among these interpretations are the two meta-ethical theories we will discuss: ethical realism and ethical relativism. Both of these ethical theories attempt to answer the question of what it means for something to be right and wrong. Are some actions innately right and wrong, or are they relative to specific cultural, religious, or individual beliefs? Can it actually be said that some actions are really independently right and wrong, or do we just think they are because of long-held relativistic beliefs? By the same token, are morals really relative,

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.