I believe that it is common sense to disagree with moral relativism solely on the fact that it accepts racism, genocide of groups, even murder, as justifiable as long as that is what the group values to be right or acceptable. Having the beliefs of a moral relativist, you could go so far as to say that a group or culture could decide that starting a nuclear war was morally just, and that we as people outside of that group could not criticize those people for their actions. If ethical relativism is to be completely true, there can be no common ground for resolving moral disputes or for reaching an agreement on moral matters between members of different cultures. When it comes to justifying moral relativism, there is no decision procedure that can demonstrate the objective truth or falsity of moral judgments. On the contrary, moral objectivism, also known as moral absolutism, encompasses ethical theories that support the objectivity of moral values and norms.…
Moral relativism- The idea of moral relativism is one that morality is relevant to your situation, and that you should be accepting other people's morals and cultures. Moral relativism can first be seen in the colonies, mainly by the quakers in pennsylvania, and quakers were also vehemently against slavery, which was another morally relativistic idea. Moral absolutism- The idea that there is a clear right and wrong and that right and wrong is the same for every situation, and the idea has had many impacts on historical events in us history.…
If individuals had no moral values, everyone would be running around without a care in the world and solely worried about themselves. There would be no awareness for anybody or anything so we would turn into selfish human beings. Ethical relativism is “the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions vary from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times” (Pojman, 14). There are some moral values worldwide that are just adopted overtime and for that I will support Louis Pojman and what he states about ethical relativism being an incoherent theory, how it is much bigger than just individuals or even societies. I strive to hit on conventionalism and subjectivism, which have their up sides but ultimately diminish Pojman’s argument on ethical relativism.…
James Rachels: 1: Moral relativism is the perspective that ethical benchmarks, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and in this way subject to a man's individual decision. We can all choose what is right for ourselves. Moral Relativists call attention to that humans are not omniscient, and history is loaded with samples of people and societies acting for the sake of a trustworthy truth later exhibited to be more than error prone, so we ought to be extremely careful about constructing vital ethical decisions in light of a gathered supreme case. Absolutes additionally have a tendency to hinder experimentation and abandon conceivable fields of request which may prompt advance in numerous fields, and smothering the human…
In defense, Anthropologist Ruth Benedict supports the concept of moral relativism in “The Case For Moral Relativism.” Benedict starts by asserting that morals are cultural norms and that morals are culturally…
Another kind of relativism is cultural relativism. This is probably my favorite kind of relativism because it is the act of looking at a person, and then looking at their cultural background and looking at it as a whole to better understand their morals. Like I mentioned earlier, when someone sees the reasoning behind something, they are less likely to judge. If someone has a moral that you do not agree with or understand, it really helps to understand the person first, and understand his or her thought process and cultural influence behind it. Anthropologists such as Sumner and Boas helped put this theory together and also helped researchers understand the people that they were studying because they then stepped back and took the time to understand their patients cultural background instead of just looking at them as a human.…
America, the land of the free and home of the brave. In the 1920s America was the land of the liberal-minded urbanites and home of the traditional fundamentalists, divided by the stronghold call morals. The fundamentalists were people who mostly lived in the rural areas of America. These fundamentalists believed the city was a trick from the devil, the streets are littered with drunks and people who would mongrelize the American race. They wanted the pure white protestant race to be the only successful race in America.…
Relativism can be subjective, which is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it or it can be cultural, the view that an action is right if one’s culture approves of it. As long as a person has approval for an action it will be considered the right action for them to make. Not every relativist is going to have morally correct beliefs because what seems right to one person may seem wrong to another. For example, some cultures believe that there is nothing wrong with committing crimes such as murder, rape, stealing because this is what is accepted and seen as normal in their culture. When looking at criterion 1 of moral criteria of adequacy, this theory appears to be inconsistent with considered judgments because what one person approves of can be seen as immorally incorrect.…
The world of Pojman On behalf of Pojman and his interpretation of universal moral principles “The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences” The executive board of the American Anthropological Association (69) The executive board of the American Anthropological Association proposal was meant to acknowledge moral diversity in different cultures around the world. This fragment was part of an introductory reading to the essay, “ The Case Against Ethical Relativism” by Louis Pojman. In this essay, he elaborates different arguments against ethical relativism, explains his own interpretation of universal moral principles and reconciles cultural…
Although this concept isn’t great for our society, it has a greater success outcome compared to absolutism. In Mary Midgley’s article, she discusses the issues with moral relativism. She claims that although moral relativism doesn’t have the greatest outcome, it is a way to view different cultures. Every culture does something based on their religion and or…
The second consequence is the loss of accountability for the actions within a society itself. The morality of an action would be solely based on the standards of the society, not based on human rights or a universal social contract. The issue therein is that there is also nothing to keep the society morally sound. If murdering a blonde abides by the moral code within the society, then the act of murder itself in that society is not morally wrong. Rachels posits the argument that if Cultural Relativism restricts one from the criticizing the actions of/in other countries, then it can also forbid one from criticizing one’s own.…
I agree with ethical relativism because we already have it and if we reject ethical relativism then who will have to power to say what's right and wrong for all societies. If we reject ethical relativism then history will repeat itself with a person who will get the power to implement what's right and wrong without any say from…
INTRODUCTION In this document, I will be discussing ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. In doing so, the first thing that I will discuss is the theocratical claims that both theories are based on. Then after discussing that, the next thing that I will do is to explain the relationship between both theories. Then lastly, I will outline some of the implications of these ethical positions on classroom practices.…
After looking at this video I do not believe that there are any throughgoing moral relativists. Even Martin Luther King Junior was not thorougoing moral relativits. Thoroughgoing moral relativists believes that there is no difference on how people “should” behave, as oppose to how people believe they should behave. Moral relativism is the view that what's morally right or wrong always depends on your culture or society. Dr. Robert George states in the video that it would be hard to live life as a consistant moral relativist who does not make any kinds of moral claim and supposes anything that anybody did was acceptable and nothing could be wrong (Colson Center for Christian Worldview, n.d., series 2).…
Moral relativists such as David Wong and Gilbert Harman have provided a more sophisticated version of moral relativism which mitigated some flaws of the inaugural and naïve form which Rachel argued against. Cultural relativism is also a relevant theory to explain the extreme cases of disagreements in our world. However, there is still invalidity and shortcomings of the cultural relativism argument that hinders moral progress, or deteriorate the view about morality into nihilistic grounds. Hence it is still essential to maintain some moral truths as objective instead of accepting the theory in…