Relativism and Morality: Analysis of Lenn Goodman's 'Some Moral Minima'

Over the last several decades, long established taboo, including the right to abortion, the right to death, and LGBTQIA+ rights have become much more acceptable throughout the United States. Consequently, it seems like basic moral norms are up to the interpretation of current and societal ideals. Moral relativism is the belief that the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist only by comparison to a society’s moral code. It is an enticing moral theory in a world where so little seems absolute. Paul Boghossian, author of “The Maze of Moral Relativism” too believes that this idea of relativism is gaining popularity and importance in contemporary culture. However, he not only believes that moral relativism is not true, but an illogical or ‘incoherent’ moral theory. Moral relativism, he claims, cannot exist because there is no middle ground between ‘moral absolutism,’ the idea that moral facts are true across all cultures and time, and ‘moral nihilism,’ the rejection of all morality as people understand it, including the ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Boghossian’s argument is able to logically destroy moral relativism, leaving little option other than to accept that absolute morality exists somewhere.

Moral Relativism is tempting as an easy choice. If someone says he or she is a moral relativist about precise issues they perhaps have an underline principle that is morally true everywhere and is not relative. However, trying to find those underline principles is really hard.

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.

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-

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 Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard

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.

Given the increasing globalization of modern society, combined with the influence of postmodernism, the philosophy of moral relativism has become increasingly popular and accepted within the academy. However, according to Lenn E. Goodman's essay "Some moral minima," some things are 'just wrong.' Goodman writes: "All living beings make claims to life" (Goodman 2010: 88). In other words, to protect the sanctity of human life, sometimes it is necessary to lay down certain absolute ground rules of morality that, regardless of cultural differences, must be obeyed. These include prohibiting: terrorism; hostage taking and child warriors; slavery, polygamy, and incest; and rape and female genital cutting (Goodman 2010: 88).

The two most prominent arguments for moral relativism include the argument of cultural diversity as well as the argument of tolerance. When it comes to cultural diversity, relativists argue

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

Moral relativism is the belief that there is no universal moral truth. Instead of seeking objective principles to guide their decisions, moral relativists look toward moral standards their cultural, social, historical, and personal circumstances. They do not view right and wrong as absolutes, but as personal opinions. True moral relativists have no ground to judge another person’s actions, as they believe each person has their own set of moral beliefs. Therefore, they cannot be judged as wrong if others disagree with their decisions. As Marquis de Sade, a French philosopher and politician, once said, “There is no action. . . that is truly criminal; or one that

When people hear the term “ethics,” most of their minds turn to dilemmas discussed by figures such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Aristotle, and other famous philosophers. These men debated what is considered to be morally good and how a person can become ethical. Operating under normative ethics, these philosophers did not question whether or not ethics even existed, but rather if they exist, what are they? The branch of ethics that questions the foundation of ethics and morality is metaethics. There are three standpoints when debating metaethics: moral realism, moral relativism, and moral skepticism. I will be discussing my argument for moral realism and contend that moral relativism and skepticism are inaccurate. I will prove the

Moral relativists normally overemphasize the level of assorted qualities among societies since shallow contrasts frequently veil hidden shared understandings. Indeed, there is a center arrangement of all inclusive qualities that any human culture must support in the event that it is to thrive. Moral relativists are additionally blamed for conflictingly guaranteeing that there are no all inclusive good standards while engaging a rule of resistance as a general standard. According to numerous faultfinders, however, the most genuine protest to good relativism is that it recommends the underhanded result that subjection is simply as per the standards of a slave society; sexist practices are appropriate as per the estimations of a sexist culture.