...Moral relativism Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative that different moral truths hold for different people in different cultural. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop. Those who reject relativism, of course, have arguments of their own: In some cases, it does seem to be right to judge one culture to be morally superior to another, to make cross-cultural comparisons. To make cross-cultural comparisons, though, one needs a cross-cultural standard, which is precisely what moral relativism says there isn’t. Not only does moral relativism entail that we cannot make legitimate moral comparisons of different cultures, it also entails that we cannot make legitimate moral comparisons of a single culture across time; we cannot judge whether a changing society is getting better or worse. Generally, though, we do think that we have made moral progress. Moral relativism, arguably, cannot make sense of this. Moral philosophy Moral philosophy refers to the basic rules or principles that people use to decide what is right or wrong. Although there is no single moral philosophy that every culture, every nation, even every people accepts, there are still some moralities are widely accepted. Such as honest, integrity, and fairness which was mentioned...
Words: 267 - Pages: 2
...Relativism is a view that what is right or wrong in some circumstances, people who believe in cultural relativism believe that morality is like a law. (Ethics book page 183). A human does not always agree what is “Right and wrong”. Has no one the authority to answer this question of right and wrong? That question was here at the very beginning of human history. As stated in the Bible in Genesis, God designated a tree that was growing in the Garden of Eden as “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” (Genesis 2:10-9).Some people growing up in a situation where cheating is good, for some people cheating is bad. Right, and wrong exist as opposite; it only exists in people mind. (Boghossian, Paul, “The Maze of Moral Relativism,” New York Times...
Words: 745 - Pages: 3
...Moral relativism vs Moral absolutism Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the insight that there are no obvious ethical truths and that moral facts are only relative to a given individual. According to this theory what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. Moral relativism holds that ethical truths are of this latter kind. According to moral relativism, ethical truths are subjective rather than objective. This means that whether lying is wrong, for example, can vary from person to person or from culture to culture. It may be that for some people, or in some cultures, it is wrong, but that for other people, or in other cultures it isn‘t. In one mild form, moral relativism can seem obvious. Of course different people have different moral obligations: I have a duty to pay my credit card bill; you do not. Each of us is in different circumstances, and those circumstances affect what we ought and ought not to do. Morality is therefore relative to circumstances. Moral truths are relative to people or groups of people. Moral relativism holds that two different people in identical circumstances can, for no other reason than that they are different people, have different obligations. This is a much stronger claim than that morality is relative to circumstances. Moral absolutism Moral absolutism is the ethical theory which believes that there are always absolute rules of which moral questions can be judged...
Words: 506 - Pages: 3
...Explain the difference between moral absolutism and relativism (25) There are two different ways in distinguishing whether something is right or wrong within ethics. Absolutism is a deontological theory, which determines whether an action is intrinsically right or wrong. Whereas relativism is a teleological theory, which determines whether an action is right or wrong based on the outcomes of the action, on its consequences, this is linked with situation ethics and consequentialism. They are two different ways in approaching ethics. Absolutism is a moral command that is objectively and universally right or wrong for all people, in all times, places and cultures. It can be said to be deontological and so something is either right or wrong intrinsically (in itself) and therefore consequences have no bearing. Whereas, relativism is a subjective theory and believe that all truth is relative and dependent upon the values of an individual or society or even situation. Relativism is a teleological approach and therefore takes into account the consequences of a situation. Therefore there are many differences between moral absolutism and relativism. An example of absolutism would be the Ten Commandments, that Natural Law portrays, which are absolute, ‘do not murder’, as this is a law that applies to everyone. Therefore an absolutist would say that it is always wrong to murder in every, and any situation. In contrast, a relativist might argue that in some situations, given the outcome...
Words: 656 - Pages: 3
...‘A relativist approach to the issues raised by abortion leads to wrong moral choices.’ Discuss. One could indeed present the argument that a relativist approach to abortion could lead to the wrong moral choices. For example, in subjective ethical relativism, although one may be able to make a moral choice completely by themselves, there are no clear guidelines in which they have to adhere to. This may lead to corruptible behaviour, as people might delude themselves into thinking certain things that are wrong; are in fact right. Additionally, conventional ethical relativism, which considers society’s values, would most likely disregard the needs of the individual, rendering them to feel pressured by society to follow cultural tradition. This may lead to the wrong moral choice being made. For example if a woman would mentally suffer with the pregnancy, but is not allowed an abortion (such as in Uganda), this would be the wrong moral decision that has resulted from a conventional relativist approach to ethics. On the other hand, a relativist approach could also lead to the correct moral choices. For example, subjectivism allows the individual to make their own choice, which ultimately can be regarded as a good thing. Only the mother herself can really know if she wants an abortion, or if she would not be able to cope with the pregnancy both mentally and physically. A relativist approach to abortion allows for the individuals needs and circumstance to be considered, rather...
Words: 330 - Pages: 2
...Vulgar Relativism Bernard Williams, a Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy, finds Benedict’s doctrine of Ethical Relativism unsustainable. William states his argument for “Vulgar Relativism” on three points. First, what is considered to be “right” means ‘right for a given society” (Williams). Secondly, what is considered “right” for a society is to be understood in a functionalist sense. In conclusion, William’s Vulgar Relativism states it is wrong for individuals in one society to condemn the values of another. Bernard William believed that relativism is “possibly the most absurd view to have been advance even in moral philosophy” (Williams). Williams continues to say that Vulgar Relativism makes a claim about what is right and what is wrong about the values of other societies in third proposition; thus making this view inconsistent. For example, the Ashanti claim and believed that human sacrifice was “right” for them. The theory allows the claim that it is right for our society not to condemn the Ashanti. According to Williams, “we have no business to interfere with it” (Williams). However, this theory suffers in its functionalists aspects from functionalism. Since society is regarded as a cultural unit, the values that a society holds is then necessary for the survival of the group. On the other hand, according to Williams, the survival of the society can be understood s the survival of certain person’s and they descendants which then functionalist propositions will be...
Words: 617 - Pages: 3
...Philosophy Exam * When is a deductive argument conclusive? All the premises are true, No fallacies are committed, and it is valid. Which of the following is one of the criteria a deductive argument must meet in order to be conclusive (good)? -the argument must be valid * What are the 3 criteria that must be met for an appeal to experts to be legitimate? 1. Must be an expert in the relevant field, expertise on the issue 2. Consensus of experts in the field must agree. 3.Expert must be liable and agreeable, reliable and credible Suppose you decide to appeal to experts to answer a question. Which of the following is NOT one of the three criteria discussed in class that must be met for your appeal to authority to be likely to get you the truth? -the expert appealed to must have published work in the field. * What are the ways discussed in class to determine what the consensus of experts believe about an issue? Professional Journals * Why is it important to rely on a consensus rather than individual experts views? Some experts just start drama, past experts have been wrong. Why is it important to rely on consensus rather than individual experts views? -a consensus is more likely to be correct * How is truth defined in class? As defined in class, a statement is true and only true if it matches up with the way things are. * What are the main points of each of the Quickie Arguments? Morality does not equal legality...
Words: 2864 - Pages: 12
...outline, explain and critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of moral relativism. Every choice we make is due to each person’s individual morality and rationality. In this view, Norman (1988: 188) contends that, “Morality is premised on the assumption of individual responsibility.” Morality is concerned with the free choice of rational human beings, and not the non-rational. Louis (2002:28) further adds that morality, “Is just the set of common rules, habbits, and customs that have won social approval over time so that they seem part of things, like facts.” Moral relativism shows that there are no absolute moral rules and each situation needs to be examined individually. Therefore moral relativism is the belief that morality does not relate to any absolute standards of right and wrong but good and bad are dependent on culture and circumstance or judgment paradigm. Thus different moral truths hold for different people from society to society or at different periods in time. The fact that some people see moral relativism as an obvious truth which is undeniable needs no preamble. Needless to mention, others perceive moral relativism as threatening to the moral foundation on which society is founded. According to moral relativists there is nothing that is absolutely, invariably right or wrong, and there is no universal standard by which to measure our character or our actions. According to moral relativism, it is never true to say simply that a certain kind of behaviour is...
Words: 1601 - Pages: 7
...“Is morality relative or are there objective moral truths?” Is Morality Subjective or Objective? Every day, we make decisions that affect our lives and others. Sometimes, those decisions are bigger than other times. Those decisions are sometimes made because the choice is to do something right or wrong. We say that a moral person will make the right decision and the immoral person will make the wrong decision. An example of this is that if I was raised in a culture that says killing is wrong. I am a Naga from Northeast India. Just over 100 years ago, we Nagas were headhunters. Killing was more than tolerated – it was expected. Men would raid other villages nearby and kill other men, bringing back heads. Even children’s heads were special trophies. This sounds very bad, even to me, but if I was born over 100 years ago, I would be okay with it. So is killing others right or wrong? Even in enlightened cultures, wars happen and people kill each other. These questions always come up when people talk about morality. In any debate, the arguments tend to take two extreme sides, which means there is not much middle ground left for the discussions. The slippery slope fallacy is often used to talk about morality. According to Richard Nordquist at about.com, the slippery slope fallacy is “A fallacy in which a course of action is objected to on the grounds that once taken it will lead to additional actions until some undesirable consequence results” (para. 1). In other words, we say something...
Words: 2323 - Pages: 10
...College Ethical Relativism Beau Fletcher An Introduction to Philosophy Professor Nicholas Hardaker The world is an immensely diverse and unique place with societies that are radically different from one another. Relativists argue that there is no universal ethical standard to identify what is right or wrong; instead, it is up to each society to develop a moral standard that is most compatible with their distinctive culture. Ethical Relativism argues that people should act within the moral standards set forth by their specific culture. It is also important to note that a society can evolve (as well as regress) over time, making way for a revised set of moral standards that are more compatible with sociological views at that time. I found it hard to identify many of my peers as having either a relativist, or absolutist position within the discussions. Many seem to have a conglomerate of the ‘best’ ideals from both sides of the spectrum. There are however, some great examples of both absolutist and relativist minds in the class discussions, being able to look at exactly how they both apply their reasoning to arrive at radically different stances on some fundamental questions about ethics and moral standards. Before I get into defining some examples of both relativist and absolutist ideologies, I want to start with a post from week two that is an excellent example of relativism in action and that shows how radically two different society’s moral standards can differ...
Words: 1585 - Pages: 7
...Fabio Cuetara Philosophy October 15, 2011 Right or Wrong Ethical Relativism is the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period. Different cultures have different ethical and moral standards that might seem odd or wrong but if they are justifiable and or not completely forced upon a group then there should be nothing wrong with said act. I agree with ethical relativism, to a certain extent, the fact that people in our modern culture criticize or judge people in others for what they do and why they do it is morally wrong. We have never had an absolute ethical standard in history so just because we think something is right or wrong doesn’t mean it is, different people respond differently to certain ideas and actions. Ethical Relativism shows us that some practices are ethically right in their respective cultures and that we should respect other people’s ethical decisions if they are made out of necessity or choice by the group of people involved. What one culture might think is absolutely horrible and wrong, might be completely acceptable and necessary in another. In other cultures some decisions are made for the survival of the civilization. The Eskimos sometimes leave there new born female children behind in the frigid climate to die. At first glance that seems incredibly wrong and inhumane, but looking further into the reasoning...
Words: 1259 - Pages: 6
...The question of whether ethical relativism or ethical absolutism is right has been the subject of much debate, and perhaps may never be answered for certain. It is certain, however, that at the present time, ethical relativism is in general accepted as the standard. Although I realize that given the fact that the best of philosophers have failed to give solid arguments for either ethical relativism or ethical absolutism will most likely be unable as well, however that is not my goal. Rather my purpose is simply to make us question the ethical relativism to which we have become so accustomed, and to demonstrate some reasons why ethical absolutism may be correct. We all know that people, in general, treat ethics as being subjective. Does that, however, make that right, just, and ethical? To put it simply, the answer is: no. This is obvious given the common example, "if all the other kids were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too." The masses are not always right. So now the thought in all your minds is "come on - go ahead! Prove us wrong." I'm not trying to prove anything, however I will hopefully give you enough information to make you question what is right, and if I do, then I've accomplished my goals. Lets begin with the basics. "What are absolute ethics?" Ethical Absolutism, is undeviating moral discipline. Nothing is relative; a crime is a crime, regardless of circumstances. For a quick demonstration of ethical relativism let us use the example of murder. Is it ok...
Words: 2114 - Pages: 9
...Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. Heidegger would have probably told the white men to let them be in their own rootedness. He may have not stood by all their views and traditions, but no man’s traditions should be neither superior nor inferior to another’s. As one of the characters in Achebe’s novel says, “What is good in one place is bad in another.”[2] The quote suggests that the Ibo people’s view was that of ethical relativism. This suggests that they know other cultures may view their beliefs as bad or unmoral, and they accepted this. This also suggest that the Ibo people accepted the cultural relativist view that good and bad differ from one cultural groups to another. Ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. Ethical relativism means that there are no set ways of life. Every person has their own set of beliefs that differ from another person, even within the same society. I believe to fully believe in ethical relativism that there would have to be no judgment placed on people or societies. I do not believe that this could be accomplished, no matter how open-minded one thinks they are. We all judge others, even without realizing we do it, so I am not sure that there can be true relativist. Based on what some of the Ibo people say in the novel, I do not believe that I can say that the entire clan was not ethical relativists. I can say that...
Words: 1526 - Pages: 7
...Ethical Relativism Name: Tutor: College: Course: Date: Introduction Several cultures, individuals and historical periods have a belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong in ethics. They hold different views concerning what should and/or what should not be done. Therefore, ethical relativism can be defined as a predisposition to make ethical choices, on the basis of what seems to be precise or reasonable according to an individual’s value system or belief. It supports the theory that argues that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind, and the conditions for knowing. Ethical relativism views that there are several ethical truths that depend on the groups or individuals holding them. In the most basic terms, ethical relativism is the belief that different things are true and right, at different times, and for different people (Trevino & Nelson, (2011). Ethical relativism can be applied in the solution of several problems in the society today. One of those problems is corruption, which has affected nearly all countries of the world today. There are more than a few forms of corruption practiced today. However, in the American culture, for instance, the main forms of corruption include bribery, graft, patronage, nepotism and cronyism, kickbacks, unholy alliance and embezzlement (Paul, Miller & Paul, (2008). The two forms of corruption that were discussed and found to affect the Kentucky Fried Beef Company...
Words: 973 - Pages: 4
...1 Discuss the relation between narrative style and mo ral judgement in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. The relation between narrative style and moral judg ement in literature is an issue in aesthetic philosophy that stretches back to Plato. ‘Narrative style’, I define as those formal literary aspects employed by the writer, in order to construct a narrative that is unique. By ‘moral judgement’, I refer to the messag e conveyed by a given text when referring to objects beyond itself. The above quest ion presupposes a relation between narrative style and moral judgement, and as such, part of my analysis will be to determine whether such a presupposition is wa rranted. Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness has been celebrated for its detailed examination o f European values and conduct. Ian Watt argues that ‘ Heart of Darkness embodies more thoroughly than any previous fiction the postu re of uncertainty and doubt.’ 1 But is this reading accurate? And if so, what stylistic devices does Conrad use in order to convey this position of ‘uncertainty’? Heart of Darkness uses an oblique narrative style, that is to say, t hat an unnamed narrator relates the narrative as it is in turn rel ated to him by Marlow, Conrad’s main protagonist in the novella. It is thus we can be to ld that for Marlow: ‘the meaning of an episode was not inside like a ke rnel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as...
Words: 1472 - Pages: 6
