Moral psychology

opportunity often strain the surrounding areas, however, and the Overnighter community of vagabonds and strangers that formed in the town of Williston, North Dakota was no different, ultimately becoming a source of conflict that forced the metaphorical moral hands of nearly everyone they surrounded. In recent years, the North Dakota oil boom has attracted men and women looking for wealth and success from all over the United States. In some cases, these people packed up nearly everything they have, left

to ever be wrong? In terms of ethical relativism, the moral views of all individuals or all cultures are all equally good and therefore nothing can be intrinsically valuable, as they are all the same. Things are valuable only because we accept them as such. If there is no way for us to be wrong, then there is no value in being right, as everything is right. If ethical relativism is true, then in this case, moral progress is impossible. Moral views can change but cannot improve with this thought

Richard Rorty: starts his essay describing incredible brutality done by the hands of one group of people (Serbs) to another (Muslims). The writer then elaborates on the logic behind such action as he introduces the concept of human rights in the essay. He state that the actions done by the Serbs in Bosnia to the Muslims are not a violation of human rights. For the acts committed against Muslims such as murder and rape weren’t committed against fellow human beings but to Muslims. They are not being

off the Ten Commandments and other common sense morals that can be agreed upon by most, if not all. Unlike laws, morals are not changed or amended. Society’s perspective of morals have changed, but the morals themselves have not. Although not everyone may follow the moral code the same way or at all, a moral code still exists whether it is used or not because the code has not changed but the interpretation is always evolving. There is a universal moral code, that never changes, only the interpretation

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

“Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Benedict, 18) What people find right or wrong lies in the matter of opinion, which can vary depending on the type of culture they take a part of. This is the first of the five main claims Rachels mentions in his essay that take a part of Cultural Relativism. Which, by itself, is painfully obvious, it only takes a moment of learning about different cultures to know this. But it is when the second claim; “The moral code of a society determines what

by studying different moral theories. We learned about Relativism, Ethical Egoism,The Divine Command Theory, Utilitarianism, Kantian Deontology, The Social Contract Theory, Rawls’ Theory of Justice, and Feminist Ethics of Care. We studied these moral theories not to make judgements about the different moral theories that are out there but instead to attempt to have a better understanding of a variety of moral theories so that we would know the reasons for and against the moral theory we believe is

Moral relativism is becoming a greater part of society everyday. Since the idea of relativism states that nothing is absolute, the concepts of right and wrong are hazy. People are questioning their morals and wondering what they should believe, but in reality, no one knows. Moral absolutes do not exist in moral relativism. People are able to believe whatever they want, but they are not allowed to express their morals as fact. Morals vary from culture to culture and from time to time. This must be

other element or aspect. Therefore, as Aristotle expressed it, things are what they are only relative to other things, and nothing is what it is simply in virtue of itself. (Basic Philosophy) Moral Relativism- is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. (Basic Philosophy) Relativism claims that ethics are relative to individuals, groups, cultures

returned back to where they reside. Following the definition provided in module two, the ethical view of moral relativism basically says that anything goes in a culture, there are no moral codes that need to be universal to all people. Ethical or moral relativism states that every culture has a different view of morality, and we as humans need to respect that. Going by this explanation of moral relativism, relativists