Relativism Vs Realism

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

Jesse Prinz is a man who defends moral relativism as opposed to moral objectivism. To be able to understand the argument between moral relativism and moral objectivism they must first be defined. Moral relativism is a claim that is only true or false relative to some variable and not absolutely. This variable could be things such as culture, place, or society. This means two different truths that contradict each other could both be considered true depending on the culture. Moral objectivism is a claim that is either true or false absolutely. This means no matter the time, place, or culture there is one certain moral truth. This makes answering moral questions easier because there is a moral fact that is the correct answer. I will go into detail and explain why Prinz defends moral relativism. Because I do not think Prinz gives a strong argument, I will then criticize Prinz’s argument, giving reasons why moral objectivism is the more logical of the two because it gives us one correct answer based off of a universal standard.

Moral relativism is the thing which is simply understood in contrast to moral autocracy that claims that morals relies on universal values and the god is the ultimate source of our common morality and that it is therefore as unchanging as what he is actually and the moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard and rather ethical “truths” depend on variables like state and culture etc

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.

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.

Moral relativism is the philosophy where things such as ethics, morals and positions of right and wrong are subject to one's own beliefs; this philosophy eliminates all objective truths. Slowly but surely, society is turning into a moral relativistic society where everyone is free to create their own truth based on how they feel. For example, an objective truth would be "The killing of innocent life is wrong," but a moral relativist could just as easily say, "I feel that killing

Socrates and Plato both objected to this standpoint, yet while maintaining views that are within stance of relativism. I agree with Plato regarding that evil is the consequence of ignorance, and as well as (in some cases) criminals have believed that what they are doing is somehow morally just. I also agree with the standpoints of Socrates, who believes that you cannot determine what is right by the opinions of others, nor can you judge something without understanding it completely. Despite with what I agree with, their other points on this matter are valid, yet rhetorical. I concur with relativism, in which people have the right to accept what they think may be moral. I have experience in observing many other people doing and stating what they believe, no matter how ridiculous it may sound, but I have no right to tell them different. I have no proof that what they are doing is wrong, nor do I have proof with what I am doing is

Every individual is free to practice what they can consider to be morally right and appropriate in their view without considering what is generally acceptable in the whole society. Under the concept of relativism, the behaviours of an individual has to be recognized and acknowledged as good and to an extent acceptable within the society even though the same is not practiced by the other people in the

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.[1]" Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2. Contemplating this interesting idea, severe doubt shall rise. Is good relative?. How do we define good ?. Is not good based on facts?. Are facts themselves relative?. If facts are relative, does this whole life make sense?. To get some adequate answers, we should take a look on relativism, a criticizing look in fact. In this paper, I will argue that relativism can not be true. I shall also try to disprove relativism using one of the arguments by Plato. It was first noted in his book Theaetetus in which Socrates had great debates with the relativists. The argument goes as follows:

In the case of cultural relativism; it is based on the right way to do things and the wrong way. Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. Such could be the case with "situational ethics," which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals have evolved, that they have changed over time, and that they are not absolute.

The first version of relativism says that the emotional fact of feeling approval is indistinguishable with the moral support of it. But, occasionally a person is conscious that, as a matter of act, the compulsory feeling of support is directed at a certain behavior, yet that same person asks whether that behavior is correct or accurate. If the psychosomatic fact of feeling approval is vague with moral provision, then being mindful of the fact that the feeling is attending at the behavior will totally settle the matter of whether the behavior is right. Since we sometimes uncertainty that something is right, despite knowledge the necessary feeling exists, the two are not alike. Because the two are not the same, this form of ethical relativism is wrong in associating them.

Two main types of ethical relativism are cultural relativism and normative ethical relativism. Cultural relativism says that there are different cultures and they always have different ways of thinking behaving and learning from the generation before, and this can be seen in daily life just by how different countries do things like music, dress, and even politics. Normative ethical relativism says that there is no universal right or wrong in the universe instead it says that what is right or wrong is different from society to society and that there is no

Relativist “is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.” (Slick, 2015) Moral relativism goes off a person’s moral principles, where principles and ethics are observed as valid in only limited situations. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of disagreement; also known as truth relatives. (Slick, 2015)

Moral relativism is a methodological principle of interpretation of the nature of morality underlying ethical theories. It is expressed in the fact that moral concepts and ideas gave extremely relative, changeable and arbitrary. Moral principles, concepts of good and evil are different in different people, social groups, and individuals in a certain way connected with the interests, beliefs, and inclinations of people, limited regarding its value time and place.

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.