The Basic Principles Of Morality

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 refers to the view that ethical systems or moral actions that are perceived to vary across cultural diversity are all equal and valid and as such, no one culture is better than the other is. For instance, by taking how words are used in one culture to mean a thing, the same words may be employed in a different culture to mean another thing. Another example is prayer announcements in Saudi Arabia can be heard from far distance which legal. Even if that may disturb your neighbors who are not Muslims. However, in United States such thing is illegal and consider a noise violation.

"Part of being human is the ability to" distinguish good from bad and vice versa (Rachels 9). Human nature is a ground for practical and moral norms that is; morality directs us to real human fulfilment. Great thinkers have formulated and developed a significant number of enduring moral principles over the centuries. Philosophy, like other social fields and also like individuals, draw on these principles, but this does not always make moral decisions easy. The principles are not entirely consistent, especially in sorting through dilemmas.

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.

Ethics is the moral criteria that we as human beings have. They are the rules of the game that are supposed to guide us through our decision making in life and how to behave to one another as part of a society. However, there are different perspectives on how this criteria should be used, and when and whom they apply to. I will focus on the three most influential moral theories: virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. Although there are many great names of philosophers that fall in those theories, I will be discussing Aristotle, Kant, and Mill’s perspective, respectively.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to act on behalf of the interests of young children. The NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct offers guidelines for responsible behavior and sets forth a common basis for resolving the principal ethical dilemmas encountered in early childhood care and education promoting a commitment to integrity, veracity, fairness, and human dignity at all levels; nevertheless, further research and/or developments may change the current code and state of knowledge. NAEYC have a Statement of Commitment; however, isn’t part of the organization’s Code of Ethics; instead, it is used as a tool, for personal acknowledgement of an individual's willingness to

Henrietta Lacks, a woman that died of cervical cancer in 1951, single handedly changed the field of science. Not long before she passed away, a doctor took a sample of her cancer cells, the cells from her cervix were later on named HeLa cells, and these cells helped pave the way to numerous experiments and research all over the world. Even though HeLa brought along many achievements with its discovery, it also brought disappointments to some researchers, and pain for her family. You see, she nor her family consented to her cells being sampled, or the amounts of experiments and research that occurred after. Her family was never aware that such actions even took place. Even so, on February 1st, 1951, the day Henrietta Lacks walked in to John

Cultural relativism is not Objectivism, which is a moral theory that states that there are certain moral standards that everyone should follow regardless of their opinion and indifference towards them. Cultural relativism is one of the two forms of Ethical Relativism. The latter one belongs to a form of moral skepticism. It states that moral standards are not objective, but relative to the standards of a person or a society. Consequently, cultural relativism is based on the belief that a moral standard is correct only when approved by the system of beliefs of a society, or wrong when such beliefs go against those of the society in general. Cultural relativism is similar to the view of ethical subjectivism, which states that a correct moral standard is the one approved by each individual, which means that morality is based on the beliefs of each person. An example of cultural relativism is a Patriarchal society in which women were undermined. In these societies women were not allowed to direct any political, economic, or cultural activities. Their role was mainly to cook and take care of the children. For many of us this is not morally correct since most of us in western societies consider that women should have the same rights as men have. However, according to cultural relativism the ideals of the Patriarchal society wouldn 't be morally wrong since morality is relative to what each society considers it 's guiding ideals, even if that includes the discrimination of women.

The basis of morality has been major area of discussion for philosophers for many years. In The Leviathan, Hobbes argues that desire and aversion determine what is good, evil, right or wrong, believing in a subjective self-interest based view on morality. In The Grounding of Metaphysics of Morals, Kant takes a rational approach, arguing that it is reason that plays a role in determining the same, thus having an objective view on morality. In my opinion, Hobbes’ account has greater validity than Kant’s in the fact that I believe it is human passion that dictates morality.

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.

Henrietta Lacks was born on August 1, 1920, in Roanoke, Virginia and she died due to complications of cervical cancer on October 4, 1951.She had been receiving treatment at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. At the hospital she was treated with radium tube inserts, which is said to be the standard treatment for cervical cancer in 1951. As a matter of routine, samples of her cervix were removed without permission. Henrietta was 31 years old when she died. In this time it was customary for doctors and researchers to remove cells from a person for testing. Likewise cells were taken from Henrietta. The problem was that the cells were

Philosophy is one of the most interesting subjects. Many people assume and confuse it with psychology. Philosophy is completely different from psychology. Psychology is how a person feels about a topic, while philosophy is how you ought to feel about the topic. The purpose of philosophy is to understand an argument, not emotional, but logically. Only by truly understanding an argument, one can improve his/her thinking. Within philosophy, there are many ethical theories. Such theories include: the Divine Command Theory, Hedonism, Desire Theory, Ethical Relativism, and much more. In this term paper, I will discuss which theory I believe is the strongest and which theory I believe is the weakest. Regardless, there is no perfect theory. Each theory has their own flaws.

When using the Utilitarian principle of a primary ethical principle, there are several things to consider. First, the utilitarian principle focuses on the whole group or focuses on what will benefit the majority of groups. The theory of utilitarian suggests that happiness and well-being are what everyone is trying to achieve. Another idea of utilitarian belief is that everyone should try to achieve and strive for greatness (Tännsjö, 2013).

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.