The dominant perspective in modern, Western philosophy is moral universalism. This is not surprising considering the very definition of morality holds universal weight. The discipline of ethics, also known as moral philosophy, explores the ideal way for all humans to live. The position of moral universalism asserts that some system of ethics applies universally, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, or any other distinguishing feature. This position is supported by utilitarianism and deontology. However, how does this explain the countless cases when one culture says a practice is ethical and another says it isn’t? It would not be fair to claim that one culture is wrong and the other is right. I argue that moral relativism is a more practical …show more content…
This is true because morals are heavily influenced by the traditions, customs, and practices within a society. However, the goal of finding ethical principles that are shared worldwide is significant because when people share common attitudes and beliefs, cooperation is easier and conflicts can be avoided. This is where moral universalism would come in handy. However, there is no extracultural standard to which we can appeal to determine whether a particular culture is right or wrong. Rightness and wrongness are social constructs. These constructs make up a framework that is referenced by the people living within it. For many, a cultural framework can provide meaning for existence. Therefore, their morals are deeply embedded in their culture. If one’s moral nature is about self-understanding, then labeling a culture’s morals as wrong could put one’s identity into question. In addition, a culture can influence ethics because it determines how people communicate, how they interact, how they relate to one another, what is appropriate behavior, and how power and statues are allocated. Culture is a significant part of ethics and vice versa. However, it is difficult to grasp the notion that two opposing moral statements can be true at the same time. It is also likely that, in our globalized world, two cultures with conflicting morals will interact at some …show more content…
I think yes. The tolerance of this is the key to coexistence. Currently, different cultures do have different moral codes. Without a tolerant attitude, these different cultures will be in perpetual conflict. In a situation such as this, it is often the case that one side will try to put an end to the ways of another through domination and dehumanization. I propose that instead of minimizing or ignoring the differences between cultures, we recognize differences and honor them as valuable. Moral relativism allows for both spatial and temporal differences. The moral code that we abide by now is not the same as it was 100 years ago, nor is it the same as the code in different cultures. Morals are influenced by both time and location. The human condition is dynamic and it is likely that the morals abided by 100 years from now will be different still. The acknowledgement of this can help to promote
Have you ever stopped and ask yourselves or even just wondered if all of the society shares any of the basic moral principles? If so, great, I’m hoping by the end of this essay that you, my readers will have a better understand to the answer to the question above. Now in order to answer the question above, I ask myself these three questions, the first question I asked were there any basic moral principle that apply itself to all people, all cultures at all times no matter the situation, the second question was were there any argument that can be given to support or contradict the different versions of ethical relativism, and the last question is any of the arguments qualified to support the each of the arguments? The main purpose of this essay is to determine whether or not all society share universal laws between one another, or is it based solely on each culture and their beliefs?
we are from different cultures, around the world, we all have similar values. Most cultures have a
The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these
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.
Morality exists throughout all cultures and religions of the world in some shape or form. In
The theory of “cultural relativism supports that there is no final appeal” (Brusseau, 2012, p.154). Hence, morality and ethics become totally subjective from place to place and purely culture oriented. As a result, when an action is considered unethical or immoral somewhere does not mean that the same action should face the same judgment elsewhere. This result is exactly the point where cultural relativism diverges from traditional ethical theories; which support that the adaption of universal
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.
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.
A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the
Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.
Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard
A fundamental aspect of cultural relativism is the recognition of deviation from the observer’s own cultural and societal emphasis, and accepting that ideas are not inherently ‘good’ or bad’, but instead exist in some infallible category defined as ‘different’. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle that leads to lack of reformation derived from the desire to maintain the façade of thoughtfulness and acceptance regarding all cultures. Whilst universal morality is a contentious topic, and for the purpose of this argument we shall assume it does –not- exist (due to the existence of such leading to a quantifiable methodology of assessing cultures’ moral integrity, which would make this entire argument of cultural relativism redundant), there is the conceptualization of innate, ubiquitous desires of humanity such as personal freedom and perceived equality in terms of social status (1).
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.
This means that there are still going to be “fundamental disagreements” among societies due to the fact that there are different practices under the same moral principle. Which one is acceptable solely depends on which culture you are from and where it is practiced. Although ethical relativism makes valid points that there are no valid universal moral principles but rather moral principles that are relative to culture or an individual’s choice; it also has objections that in which problems arise from this theory. The idea of Subjectivism; which is
We should come together and reach an understanding of each other, and move beyond a simple tolerance of life. We should try to embrace and honor the rich dimensions of diversification that is embodied within each individual in a way that is customary to fit one’s personality. This is better known as their own characterization or virtue. In Benedict’s “The Case for Moral Relativism” he states, “It is hard for us, born and brought up in a culture that makes no use of the experience, to realize how important a role it may play and how many individuals are capable of it, once it has been given an honorable place in any society…” (page 133). From this, he claims that from childhood to adulthood we are raised within certain standards of morals and considered to be categorized within groups. These standards are unique to each group of people. As we grow out of childhood, we become aware of the set of morals and values that have a tendency to change over age and time. I personally do believe that morals will continue to change overtime, and due to this, different culture variations will hold different cultural values and morals. It is hard to imagine a world in which we all believe the same things are “right” and wrong.” In “Why Morality Is Not Relative” James Rachels summarizes the theory into one brief statement: “To many thinkers, this observation- ‘Different cultures have different moral codes’- has seemed to be the key to understanding morality” (page 139). The idea behind this quote was to share his point of view; variations in diversity hold different types of moral views and interprets these views differently from those of another