The Moral Of Moral Relativism

Moral codes reflect people’s adherence to their way of life and hence, Mackie concludes that the most likely explanation for the radical differences in moral rules is that they arise from different ways of life and attitudes across different cultures and historical epochs, instead of being manifestations of one group’s flawed perceptions of an objective set of moral values. He cites the example of the practice of monogamy in certain societies, and draws the reader’s attention to the direction of causality: that it is likely that people in those societies approve of a monogamous way of life because they practise it instead of practising monogamy because they approve of it. This suggests that one’s moral propensities are highly dependent on their societal norms and practices. A possible counter to this argument is that the issue of moral disagreement is not as radical or severe as Mackie describes. Opponents of Mackie propose that there are general principles or moral rules by which all societies adhere to, or are at least recognized. Such values are generally those that have to be true in order for societies to exist and function. One example is the virtue of honesty. Humans, being social creatures, thrive in a community where trust among individuals can be fostered. Hence, the practice of truth-telling

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.

The second chapter of the book covers three moral views – objectivism, relativism, and emotivism. Objectivism is the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. For example, according to an objectivist moral view torturing people is not acceptable universally. The second moral view is relativism. There are two types of relativism: cultural relativism, which approves an action if it is morally right to one’s culture; and subjective relativism – the view that an action is right if one approves of it (Vaughan 20). For example, some cultures support the sex-selective apportion, because female babies are not encouraged (Sex-Selection). If a group of people believe it is right, then

Louis Vaughn states that the purpose of morality is not to describe how things are, but to “prescribe how things should be” (2). In Philosophy, moral relativism and moral objectivism are two conflicting but somewhat overlapping school of thought. These beliefs govern the way an individual acts; they also decide the ethical guidelines from which the law is written. In this essay we will delineate the differences between the two sects of belief.

In our daily life we hope that there is an innermost balance of morality, evidently determining how we act and react to various situations. However, it is not always clear what that reasoning is, if the sense of morality in each of us is actually a social inventive to do the right

Ethnocentrism is difficult to overcome in trying to understand the ways of others cultures. It usually leads people to believe that their own culture’s way of life is in some ways better or more natural than that of others. It is also hard to avoid this perspective because people are socialized to think in ways consistent with their cultural values and to evaluate practices in terms of how well they fit with a culture's views on what is good or bad. In general, cultures tend to value more those characteristics for which their own culture is particularly accomplished. The cultural variation in moral reasoning, described next would seem to behoove one to be slow to pass judgement on other cultures and first consider why the carious cultural differences exist as they do.

The interesting aspect of morality is how universally objective it is supposed to be,

Several modern sociologists and experts in anthropology have debated or based their arguments along related lines that ethics since it is a shared product, evolves diversely within diverse customs (Nanda and Warms 112-303). Every society initiates norms that are applied by individuals within it to differentiate tolerable from offensive conduct, and every decision of right and wrong presumes one or another of these standards. Therefore, consistent with these investigators, if customs for example polygamy are deemed right in a culture, then they are appropriate for that culture; and if similar traditions are considered

In a world of many cultures, beliefs, and varying society’s all across our known world, different people hold very different moral standards. Moral subjectivism, the idea that there is no moral law and that all actions, right or wrong are dependent on the person making the judgement, is the only explanation which can account for the diverse moral views that are so prevalent across the globe for billions of people. There is no known absolute law which is universal across the cosmos let alone the earth, as a result all morality is relative.

I find many of the arguments against moral relativism to be very convincing, but for me, there are other reasons why I disagree with that view point, in my opinion it’s hard to reconcile where rules and boundaries come into play. After carefully contemplating these ideas for some time, I’ve come with three more arguments against moral relativism that explain why I largely disagree with it.

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.

In the article “Moral Relativism Defended,” Gilbert Harman argues for moral relativism in that, when an agreement is reached, morality becomes apparent in accordance with an understanding of one another. Ultimately, Harman molds his “logical” thesis towards one title within his relativism “inner judgments” (page 36) in morally absorbing what constitutes a right or wrong judgment while also considering all aspects of a situation implying reason to an individual and affirmation from society, for example. Defending these moral judgments relates to motivating and changing attitudes of which procure from an agreement, in other words, a form of the term moral relativism. Overall a case against judgments rationally defending what someone a part of society should or should not do and how moral judgments can be established through intentions, goals, and mere desires.

Many ethicists see the rightness and wrongness differently. These different views on morality give birth to various theories of morality that we have largely explored this week in the reading assignment. Each theory leader and their disciple s attempt to explain the core concept known as morality. Each attempt to explain the concept of ethic is resulted in different views of what is wrong and what is bad. Some think that there are some universal principles that lead our actions, and our likeliness to practice goodness will depend on our obedience to these principles. Others say that the thought of some universal principles is out of the norm, but instead actions are good or bad regarding of the culture in which one is evolving. Some of very

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.