The Ethics Of Relativism And Ethical Issues In Immigration And Immigration

Moral Relativism is classified under any positions concerning the differences in moral judgments between people and the culture. Moral relativism is the position that ethical or moral propositions make claims regarding cultural or personal circumstances. Moral Relativism affirms relative form of validation of moral statements but doesn’t deny them. Moral relativist typically view the ethical standards of right or wrong are culturally based and are issued to a person's individual decision. Instead of making their decision on “what is right,” decisions are based on self-interest. This procedure has a negative impact on behavior and will affected the way we treat others.

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.

There are many issues in the United States. Some of them are more distraught than others. One issue that has recently had a lot of controversy would be immigration laws. Should we put a stop to immigrants coming over United States boarders? Should the immigrants already in the U.S.A. be allowed to stay? These are some questions being asked by today’s society. Immigrants are not all bad; some are very useful to the United States. In society today, it is easy for some people to find issues with immigrants in America, but people also need to remember America was formed by immigrants.

Deportation has been around for quite some time, but has only now become a controversial topic due to the high incarceration and deportation rate in the last decade. According to Tanya Maria Golash-Boza, sociology professor at UC Merced, and author of the book Deported Immigrant Policing, Disposable Labor, and Global Capitalism, Obama and his administration deport more than 1000 immigrants a day. In the year 2012 the Obama administration established, “an all-time record high of more than 400,000 deportees” (Golash-Boza). What is more surprising is the fact that in 2012 more individuals were deported then the sum of all the individuals deported before the year 1997 (Golash-Boza). Mass migration of illegal immigrants began with the end of Keynesianism and the beginning of the neoliberalism. The ramifications of Neoliberalism has not only affected the us economy, but U.S. laws that directly influences the well-being of illegal immigrants.

Although the issue of immigration policy has been at the center of political debates, largely discussed in the media and newspapers, no one has yet found a solution to this ill-defined problem, that would comply with the America’s core values. While I think the immigration policy does need a reform, the solution to this problem certainly is not a deportation of all undocumented residents.

Throughout the article, “The Framing of Immigration,” George Lakoff and Sam Ferguson hold an affirmative tone encouraging the public to view immigration not only politically, but also emotionally. The authors’ claim that today’s current debate on immigration is not fully grasping all the aspects, such as an analyzing immigrant's reasons for fleeing and how they live in America, later affecting it -- these reason must be taken into account to find an efficient solution where all countries must help to end this conflict. To emphasis their main claim they break down immigration, analyzing how they are referred to in a degrading manner, are being treated unfairly by the government in America, and encouraging readers to understand their perspective.

Republicans and Democrats have been fighting over the issue of immigration since the 1900s. Immigration has been an issue declared by both Democrats and Republicans alike over debates, elections and even the presidency. Each political party has different viewpoints of immigration and how it effects society and the U.S. as a whole. Immigration is the great division between two opinions. These two sides are: one being people that are accepting with immigrants coming in and out of the U.S., while the others say there shouldn’t be any immigrants coming to the U.S. Both parties have different stances on these issues, however, neither are as reliable as the facts.

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

Immigration is associated with deportation. What is deportation? “Deportation is a major law enforcement system that looms over the tens of millions non-citizens who live, study, and work in this country” (Kanstroom, 2007). Other will see deportation as a punishment but it isn’t. it is a restitution, which is restoring the status quo, making things like they were before the crime happened. According to the article No Human Being is Illegal, Cesar and Garcia quoted, “Furthermore, expanding Congress’s power is the law’s view, developed in cases stretching as far back as 1882, that deportation Is not a punishment for crime. It does not matter to the supreme court, which has repeatedly endorsed

The dilemma of illegal immigration is an issue that manifest itself as a major topic of discussion in the House of Representatives. Central and South America are wo regions of the many regions that have gathered the most attention regarding illegal immigration in the last few decades. In the last decades, the U.S. Government has been implementing propositions and formulating plans to minimize the issue without violating the basic natural rights of illegal aliens. The U.S. Government and migration agencies, however, tends to rely on a method considered cruel by but necessary by many. Repatriation refers to the act of sending or bringing an individual or group of people back to their country of birth. The act could be voluntary or lawfully forced depending on the legal standpoint of an individual. The word repatriation does not apply as much in the modern language usage. The term has been substituted for a word

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.

Cultural relativism is the theory where there is no objective truth in morality, and moral truths are determined by different cultures. The primary argument used to justify cultural relativism is the cultural differences argument, which claims different cultures have different moral practices and beliefs, therefore, there is no objective truth in morality (Newton). After reading James Rachels The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I find his criticisms to be persuasive because the argument made for Cultural Relativism is not sound from a logical point of view. You cannot draw a conclusion about what is factual based on what people believe is factual. Rachels also points out that even though cultures do in fact disagree about moral values,

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.

Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion, traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the “doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs”(Pojman, 24).