Society as a culture should be for the theory behind ethical relativism because it makes for a morally diverse society, has more pros than cons and one should follow what they feel is morally right or wrong. For ethical standards may be concrete or written in stone never to be changed however are important to the standards of moral to the individual person; moral and ethical values are not universal and common among all but vary depending on the culture of the individual person. Cannibalism is either viewed by many as morally and ethically wrong but it can also be right depending on the situation given and within reason; it is dependent upon moral and ethical values of any one individual. Not a society or cultural group. Ethical relativism teaches us simply “that there is no universal standard of morality. There is no act that is always right or wrong for all people of all times. Instead of a definable standard, morality is based on the culture, the will of the people, careful consideration of scientific advancements, or personal opinion.” (www.compellingtruth.org) What book, if any, tells humans within any culture, what is right or wrong? Moral is a very intricate subject due to the opinions of others but morally speaking is cannibalism right or wrong? In China infanticide is accepted, how can it be morally accepted? In many states now, gay marriage is legally accepted, does that make it right? Moral is based upon what we were taught growing up and learned from
Ethical Relativism is, in fact, common goals, morals, values, traditions and ethics that cultures, small groups or societies share. Some different societies condemn individuals do to being involve in abortions, genocide, racism, sexism, torture or suicide (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S.J & Meyer, pp.45-46, Summer 1992). In certain tribes suicide, it is considered noble if one takes their life. In the
It is fair to agree with the idea of Moral Relativism. Each culture has their own views of right or wrong. Stepping into different cultures is similar to being a part of new societies, each with differing practices and ideals. There is no single definition of what is right or what is wrong. Individuals has their own opinions on separate topics and each reason for a belief is acceptable. For example, in some cultures it is important for a man to have multiple wives and women are not allowed to leave their homes without a man accompanying them. In the United States, it is not acceptable to have multiple wives and each woman has the freedom to go where ever they like whenever they please. When discussing the idea of abortion individuals have opposing views depending on what their morals are and if they believe in the life of an unborn child. While some people believe it is entirely up to the pregnant women whether they desire to abort their
Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.
Moral relativism is the thing which is simply understood in contrast to moral autocracy that claims that morals relies on universal values and the god is the ultimate source of our common morality and that it is therefore as unchanging as what he is actually and the moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard and rather ethical “truths” depend on variables like state and culture etc
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.
To summarize a little about ethical relativism it is based on what the person or society would believe to be morally correct without any influence from outsiders, ethical objectivism is mainly based on facts and sound reasoning that even if we weren’t here to witness it, it would still happen. Ethical objectivism is just plain simple facts, for instance if a tree fell in the woods even though we aren’t there, it would still make a crashing sound as it fell to the forest bed.
The first ethical belief that the author discusses is Cultural Relativism. It talks about the how diversity is becoming more and more apparent between different cultures worldwide. The author mentions that often customs that are unquestioningly accepted in one part of the world are considered abhorrent in another, for example: human sacrifice. Cultural Relativism claims that there are no absolute standards for moral
Second, there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another can. Third, the moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many. Forth, there is no “universal truth” in which moral truths hold for everyone, in every situation. Fifth, the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society. For example, if the moral code of a society believes that it is acceptable to murder people with blond hair, then that action is right, at least within that society. Sixth, it is arrogant for us to try to judge the conduct of other people. Instead, we should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.
After reading both point of views, written by Ruth Benedict, “Are Ethics Relative?” I think I would side with the relativism approach. The relativism approach focuses on a personal approach towards the understanding of how one views the moral rules. I think that not all moral rules apply to all people in the world. Depending on the individual the culture will have a different effect approach based on the person.
Ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two types of meta-ethical views, meaning the two theories attempt to understand the reason behind ethical properties, attitudes, boundaries and judgements. Ethical universalism can be viewed as an ideal world, while ethical relativism explains a more realistic perspective on why different cultures can view the same actions differently. The two delve more into the essential meaning of a theory rather than just simply labeling actions as right or wrong.
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.
Morality, the question of what is right and what is wrong but more importantly who decides what is morally right and what is wrong? Who determines what is morally right and wrong is a question philosophers have been arguing over for centuries dating back to Aristotle and Plato. Are moral standards created collectively by different cultures differing from culture to culture or are there universal morals that apply to each human no matter the culture they belong to? Cultural relativism is the theory that what is moral is relative to the norms of specific cultures with no universal morals. I disagree with this theory and believe that cultural relativism is not the correct ethical theory for all people to apply.
Two main types of ethical relativism are cultural relativism and normative ethical relativism. Cultural relativism says that there are different cultures and they always have different ways of thinking behaving and learning from the generation before, and this can be seen in daily life just by how different countries do things like music, dress, and even politics. Normative ethical relativism says that there is no universal right or wrong in the universe instead it says that what is right or wrong is different from society to society and that there is no
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.