Relativism Is Relative

Morality seeks to provide a moral agreement that binds the people in a society by providing a blueprint of shared values that dictate what is right and wrong. The two principles of morality are moral objectivism and moral relativism. The thesis of this essay is that moral relativism is a better guide to morality as compared to moral objectivity as it puts things into perspective by considering moral ideas and variables on a universal understanding.

Subjective relativism theorizes that an action is morally right if one approves it. Thus, with the person’s approval, the action immediately becomes morally right. However, this concept has major flaws. Subjective relativism believes that people are infallible and incapable of having flaws. This implies that individual in society cannot have a moral disagreement due to the fact the moral principles apply to everyone in society.

Relativism is the philosophical idea that the views and beliefs of a person are valid and relative to them. It can include many positions, whether it be religious, moral, cultural or even political. Over the course of this quarter I have been introduced to many different theories like Utilitarianism, Deontological and Teleological theories, but none of them got my attention like Normative Cultural Relativism. What’s great about philosophy is that there are no right or wrong answers, yet I cannot help but realize that many philosophers nowadays are biased about Normative Cultural Relativism. Many don’t agree and rather attack the theory which is why I intend to defend it.

Moral relativism is a prominent idea in philosophy that asks the question “Who am I to judge?”. This question focus primarily on morals between different people and cultures. As different cultures have different values and ways of life it stands that the morals between two cultures would vary, whether it be minimally or vastly. Midgley believed it was impossible to understand other cultures’ way, and that if we wanted to remain respectful and non discriminatory then we must not pass any form of judgement upon each other.

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.

In this paper, I will summarize the article and offer comments about these selected aspects, identify some relevant and irrelevant issues. I will also suggest areas where addition research findings would help in understanding relativism and common moral values in a simplistic and effective

in this paper, I will dispute the ancient analization of the facts that show a

In this paper, I’m going to discuss the argument that the famous American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, has put forth regarding ‘ethical relativism’. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms and values of one's culture or society. That is, whether an action is classified as right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

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.

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

Protagoras’s relativism said that morals are just social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. That our culture, conditioning, experience and biopsychology influence our values. It is impossible to form a culture free or context free belief according to Protagoras. For example, I’m from Texas, so I have a vastly different culture than a person from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Socrates concluded that the truth was relative and that knowledge is based on specific qualities of the person as in the place you were born, age, religious affliliation, and family habits. He argued that we should only accept what seems to be true at the moment. He also believed that each culture only believes that it’s ways are best, but the person who is studying

Within the textbook by Peter Godfrey-Smith, Relativism was defined as “no single set of standards entitled to govern this context holds that there is no single set of standards entitled to govern the justification of beliefs” (Godfrey-Smith 127). Relativism here would argue that one’s point of view, and the norms that they operate under, would have a large impact on science, making it nothing that is special from any other way of learning about the world. Godfrey Smith says how everyone in science dominated societies would strongly believe that “Science really is the best way of learning about the world,” (Godfrey-Smith 128) but that belief in itself is only an expression of the norms of the group of people. Essentially, all discoveries in science are only really situated within a local context, and there is no absolute truth about the knowledge that is gained in science. Peter-Godfrey Smith’s critique of relativism in science is mostly, if no set belief, norms, or knowledge system is greater or superior than others, then how would any theories in science explain anything, or even exist. Also, Godfrey-Smith generally believes that relativism would be an inefficient way to conduct science because of the amount of uncertainty that would exist in what is discovered. However, despite these initial shortcomings, relativism should be something that everyone working within the field of science should consider. Relativism holds more merit and plausibility

Testimony, a declaration or proposition which an individual claims to be true and fact, is key to social epistemology. With certainty, some individuals ' claims, beliefs, and opinions are converging, whereas others ' are diverging. There are differences between subjective reality, influenced by the aforementioned factors of influence from objective truths that exist and can be known independent from the social contexts. However, these two extremes are intimately associated. Reality is a combination of both subjective and objective beliefs, and is ultimately relative and formed by the perceptions of the individual . On the other hand, social epistemology, is focused on the social influences of individual and collective knowledge. Relativism, in this context, relates to thought or ideas created by individuals. The differences between people 's beliefs and ideas are simply relating subject to subject 's reality. The knowledge from this reality is known and determined by the individual or group 's experience . If