Relativism and Morality

Culture is the Backbone of a society, when something/someone tries to alter it or go against it everyone will notice. In this issue pointed out by Ruth Macklin, we look at the problems that can arise when an individual’s culture and autonomy clash. Every year there at least 30 million immigrants from all over the world that move to the United states of America, making America one of the most culturally diverse country in the world. Keeping this in mind, we will focus on Ruth Macklin’s issue of Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles. Critics argue that we associate culture with a society, community and or family, but rarely with a single individual, thus placing it above the individual person. In this paper we are going to look at four different scenarios on from Ruth Macklin’s article.

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.

Moral and values is some of the things we learn as we grow up and these morals and values we learn from our parents and friends and also from our cultures and some of them you get to develop them as you grow up. The is so many ways to develop ones morals and values and cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism is of those ways that are used to develop morals and values.

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.

Intervening in a town, state, or country has its ups and downs. What you think would benefit the country might make the country more in turmoil. You do not know how they live, what they go through on a daily basis, or what they beliefs are. Some people might welcome you with open arms, while others will do the opposite.

Looking over the views of moral relativists and cultural relativists, I realized that there was an interesting similarity between their views. Although both moral relativist and cultural relativist views of subjective moral facts are based on their communities’ views, other external factors such as culture, social standpoint, social pressure and etc. dramatically affect a community’s view, thus,separating moral relativist and cultural relativist. As a result, these factor carries a substantial amount of bias in altering judgment of moral subjects. For example, actions of eating beef can be seen as right and wrong depending on the community you are in. If you are in a community that beef was staple food, eating beef would be seen as normal.

Moral Relativism is the belief that the way actions are judged is relative to culture. Without something to reference an action to, or a set of standards to determine what is right and what is wrong, we would have no way of evaluating actions. It makes no sense to say that a dog is absolutely and universally large. We can only say that it may be large when compared to a Chihuahua or when compared to a Great Dane. In this same respect, it makes no sense to say that an action is absolutely, universally wrong unless you have a set of cultural agreed upon actions to reference it to (Harman, 1975).

There are two different branches of moral realism. One, moral absolutism which means that in any situation a person is in, no matter the circumstances their morals stay the same every single time. Two, moral pluralism and this can be described as a person having all of their moral values. In addition to, abiding by their moral values, they also have to abide by their moral guidelines. This can be hard because at times they can conflict, but if any situation where you have to provide yourself with self defense, it is allowed. Moral realism can be described as being very judgmental. Applying moral judgments that is noticed in a person such as saying, “Paul is morally good.” There is always a way to morally judge a person by laying down the principles for acceptable and/or unacceptable behavior. The use of moral realism is simply using the codes of logic to make a moral judgement, in a statement. Not all the time will there be a true or immoral way to make a judgement. There will also be factual beliefs, such as making a false belief. Moral realism will also be needed when two beliefs are conflicted, then you have to apply your full focus to the belief that is truly moral, to decide what is the best choice. Some examples of Philosophers who fall under the moral realism category are Richard Boyd, as he believes that moral statements are either true or false. In addition,the great philosopher known as Plato also leaned towards the moral realism side rather then moral relativism.

Moral relativism: Moral relativism is defined as the viewpoint of an individual on moral values, ethical standards or cultural values that individual believes in. It is subject to individual choice of a person that he believes for himself. Whether it is right or wrong is decided by himself. It is the notion which defines that there is no absolute value for right or wrong instead it is the personal opinion of an individual based on the circumstances or on the cultural orientation. It can be taken positively where it promotes tolerance or can be taken negatively by breaking law or doing something wrong. Pursuing IT as Christian vocation means God has selected you for a particular job and it is your duty to complete it and execute it in right

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,

Is our perception of things around us real? If so, how can we be certain that the universe around us actually exists? And how can we know that the world we see matches what anyone else experiences? So, what’s real? A bunch of questions like these made scientists omit the term “absolute” from their theories and think of what relativity should be. Many approaches were there to define relativity which is subject to change or to be modified whenever a new concept is introduced. Centuries ago, physicists’ laws were based on the Newtonian relativity that’s summarized as “the laws of mechanics are the same for any observer moving at constant speed”. In other words, we all play by the same physical rules, whether we are moving or standing still. But,

My precise attentiveness in this subject is whether relativism, which is a belief about beliefs, is an adequate or workable foundation for ethics. I wonder if relativism avoids us from discriminating and supporting those principles most productive of justice and happiness for all. Can it manage moral passion, bravery, and obligation to live by the highest and best we know. People who loathe relativism maintain that valid moral judgments reflect the objective structure of reality. Right and wrong are punished in natural law or the will of God or some other pattern in the very nature of things. Or else all sorts of dire consequences chart. Not all criticisms assume the same definition or apply to every type of relativism. Some of the typical

On the perfectionist account there exists an established categorization of the moral status of conscious persons or beings. The moral perfectionist maintains that morality is hierarchical, which is to say that they hold that differentially weighted considerations should be given to different beings depending on the level to which they possess certain characteristics. For example, throughout the history of western philosophy one of the most popularly touted of the characteristics of higher order moral agents has been the possession of formal language. Consider, then, the non-human animal from this perspective - from a Heideggarian perspective, if you will. According to Heidegger (2001), the Animal does not die; it merely perishes and is,

Morality is subjective and is developed overtime. Different cultures have different beliefs and rules on what is morally acceptable. Descriptive Relativism is the different moral standards for distinguishing what is right or wrong in different cultures. Moral Relativism is more of what each culture or society ought to believe to be morally correct. In some cultures there are actions that are acceptable but in other cultures they may be unacceptable. Moral Relativism acknowledges the differences but does not change the reasoning of what ought to be morally correct. Therefore, if Descriptive Relativism is true then Moral Relativism can be true as well. However, just because descriptive relativism is true, Moral Relativism does not have to

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.