Relativism, The, And Relativism

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

According to Mosser (2013) "Relativism is the idea that one's beliefs and values are understood in terms of one's society, culture, or even one's own individual values."

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.

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.

The second chapter of the book covers three moral views – objectivism, relativism, and emotivism. Objectivism is the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. For example, according to an objectivist moral view torturing people is not acceptable universally. The second moral view is relativism. There are two types of relativism: cultural relativism, which approves an action if it is morally right to one’s culture; and subjective relativism – the view that an action is right if one approves of it (Vaughan 20). For example, some cultures support the sex-selective apportion, because female babies are not encouraged (Sex-Selection). If a group of people believe it is right, then

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).

According to Anonymous in Dissoi Logoi Cultural Relativism is defined as, “only an individual’s perspective can determine the value of a given object, act, experience, and so on. (Anonymous, 1979, p. 47). Anonymous provides 5 sections on Cultural Relativism, Good and Bad, Seemly and Shameful, Just and Unjust and Truth and Falsehood. On Good or Bad he gives us the example, “Death is bad for those who die, but good for the undertakers and grave diggers.” (Anonymous, 1979, 48). In Seemly and

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.

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

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.

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.

Many different ideas have been given the name ‘relativism’, and the term has been used to pillory all sorts of views (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones). It is mere posturing to say that you are for or against “relativism” unless you say what you mean by the term. Here I want mainly to discuss (and to criticize) a view I have encountered among students in philosophy courses, who say things like this: "What anyone believes is true for that person. What you believe is true for you, what I believe is true for me." We can call the view expressed in such statements ‘relativism’ because it denies that there is any such thing as “absolute” truth, holds that all truth is relative to the person who believes it.

Nowadays, we live in a fast changing world society, in which it is making people of different cultures interact closely to each other. This contact may be a good one or a bad one. It all depends on how open mind we are and how respectful we are with the different cultures. As curious persons, almost everyone wants to know about others cultures, which are its tradition, religion, costume, and how that culture works. However, people make judgment about the things they may think are wrong, disgusting, or even inhuman from other cultures. Because they think that their culture is better than the other ones. Cultural relativism explains to us why it does not exist a major culture we should follow or think it is the best one.

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.