Savannah Moral Relativism

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.

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.

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.

Accepting the differences of others by expanding your own level of understanding begins with the awareness that your own culture

Relativism by David Wong address issues attached to moral relativism and common moral values. Wong has a unique perspective when analyzing how we view moral relativism and common moral values that an individual or a society can make a distinction. His arguments begin with him giving us types of moral relativism; Meta ethical relativism and normative relativism. He also talks about common moral values and natural laws, views that counterattack relativism.

Moral relativism explains plenty of cultural differences. It allows different societies to have different standards of rightness and validates them. John Ladd details, “[as a result,] whether or not it is right for individuals to act a certain way depends on the society to which they belong” (31). He concludes that there is no absolute or universal moral standard by which all men abide by. By combining the diversity thesis (each culture is different) and the dependency thesis (people act differently dependent 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.

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.

Newsstands proclaim it. Talk shows trumpet it. Scandal, murder, and deception! People share a common disdain for these evils, scorning those who commit the dirty deeds. Laws are upheld to prevent people from doing “bad” things, but how do people come to an agreement on what is truly wrong? Even as society moves away from traditional teachings and perspectives, many acts are still universally looked down upon. Throughout history, the majority of civilizations have held surprisingly similar moral ideals regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although moral relativists believe that morality is individually determined, there is, in fact, an objective moral standard that governs all humanity, because a sense of right and wrong is universal, transcends time and culture, and is evident in the majority of people.

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

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

Having a commonality will allow the gap in cultural, gender and ethnical differences to merge together. Example, there is an older lady that work with me who is very quiet and she is from Africa. Several coworkers whisper about her, stating “she’s evil, she’s scary, and she’s a witch”. I started talking to this lady and I enjoyed our conversation. This woman has so much wisdom that I felt like a little child sitting at the feet of my Parents. This woman stated “I know what people are saying about me and told me she’s not a witch and that she doesn’t get involved in other people business and that she sit and observe quietly and pray when she’s not working.” This woman is now known as the go to person if you need prayer. Because of this woman being different from what was considered normal she was labeled. According to the lecture for this week, “The challenge for us is to find ways to bridge the gap between groups. To do so, we have to develop certain skills and abilities. The first is to examine our own views of others, be they part of the minority or the majority group, a different social class, or a different gender.” (Bell, 2007).

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.