...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
...Cultural and ethical relativism are two extensive theories that are used to rationalize the differences amongst cultures in regards to their morals and ethics. Ruth Benedict, a significant American anthropologist from 1887 to 1948, moved from the theories of cultural relativism to the theories of ethical relativism, which brought major criticism to her work and philosophy’s. Cultural relativism is the view that one is born into a particular culture. Culture in this definition is the sum of peoples’ practices, from birth rituals, to how adolescence is defined, to gender roles. Being born into a particular culture shapes one’s particular worldview. A person cannot fully participate in a culture unless that person has “lived according to its...
Words: 1013 - Pages: 5
...deliberations on morality are useless is called a _______ subjectist Cynical A______truth is dependent on the subject’s own experience. Subjective A person who believes that whatever an individual says is right for that particular individual is called a _____ Relativist Hume believed that the only kind of truth that can be known is a _____ Truth Subjective The notion of ethical _________which is often mistaken and confused with Ethical relativism, doubts that any acts are right or wrong. | | Skepticism Moral decisions, determinations, and judgments are acknowledged and established in a cultural context, and these positions are subject to change depending on one’s cultural Relativism ______is the notion that there is no concrete certainty the sphere of knowledge and truth. Relativism An objective______ is a truth that is independent of an observer. Truth _________ is the notion that truth depends on context—the time, place, and the identity of the observer. Relativism The certainty of Descartes’ rationalism leads to the idea of absolute truth In the never-ending debate between relativism and dogmatism, most people agree that the solution for inclusivity is moderation People who argue that ethics and morality are subjective, and moral choices should be made on individual assessment, or societal allowances granted to the individual are called ethical relativists ------------------------------------------------- Approaching morality _______ ethics...
Words: 1397 - Pages: 6
...Ethical Relativism 1. Ethical Relativism: In this lecture, we will discuss a moral theory called ethical relativism (sometimes called “cultural relativism”). Ethical Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong is dependent upon what one’s culture believes is right or wrong. In short, if your society or culture BELIEVES that some action is morally wrong, then it IS morally wrong for everyone within that society. Businesspeople often claim something similar. They say, for instance, that businesses operate under their own system of morality. What is deemed to be right by some business IS right for that business. This makes morality relative. For instance, if one society says cannibalism is morally wrong, while another says it is morally permissible, then the fact of whether or not cannibalism is morally wrong will just be a relative one—namely, whether or not it is wrong for someone will just depend upon which society they are in. We will now ask the question: Does some action become right or wrong just because one’s society, or employer, SAYS it is right or wrong? Or rather, is it the case that there are some moral standards that apply to ALL businesses and societies, regardless of whether or not those societies believe in those standards? 2. The Argument From Disagreement: Why believe that morality is relative? Relativists often say that widespread moral disagreement proves that their view is true. They say: 1. Different people have different beliefs...
Words: 2510 - Pages: 11
...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
...a) Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. (25) To start, it is necessary to define the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' with reference to morality. Absolute means any theory in which the rules are absolute: they are unchanging and universal. Relative means any theory in which something is judged in relation to something else and is therefore open to change. Absolute laws or rules of morality will never change. Another way of putting this is that they are objective. Objective means that I am not bringing in any personal opinions or bias, so the rules that I work out are rules that anybody else would rationally come up with. We may come to work out these rules by use of reason and so any rational human being would be able to use his/her reason to come up with the same set of rules. For example, I may, using reason, work out that it is wrong to lie. An absolutist would think that it is therefore always wrong to lie, in any situation and in any culture. So it is just as wrong for me to lie about cheating on my boyfriend as it is to lie about the fact that Santa isn't real. And I can never think it is right to lie, even, to use Kant's famous example, if there was a murder at my door enquiring as to the whereabouts of my friend. If I knew my friend was hiding in my house, I would have to tell this to the murderer. In this situation, Kant would say that if I had lied to the murdered, and then in some strange coincidence my friend had left my house and was...
Words: 1932 - Pages: 8
...a) Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. (25) To start, it is necessary to define the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' with reference to morality. Absolute means any theory in which the rules are absolute: they are unchanging and universal. Relative means any theory in which something is judged in relation to something else and is therefore open to change. Absolute laws or rules of morality will never change. Another way of putting this is that they are objective. Objective means that I am not bringing in any personal opinions or bias, so the rules that I work out are rules that anybody else would rationally come up with. We may come to work out these rules by use of reason and so any rational human being would be able to use his/her reason to come up with the same set of rules. For example, I may, using reason, work out that it is wrong to lie. An absolutist would think that it is therefore always wrong to lie, in any situation and in any culture. So it is just as wrong for me to lie about cheating on my boyfriend as it is to lie about the fact that Santa isn't real. And I can never think it is right to lie, even, to use Kant's famous example, if there was a murder at my door enquiring as to the whereabouts of my friend. If I knew my friend was hiding in my house, I would have to tell this to the murderer. In this situation, Kant would say that if I had lied to the murdered, and then in some strange coincidence my friend had left my house and was met...
Words: 1932 - Pages: 8
...RELATIVISM AND MORALITY Week 2 Assignment Sarah Knight SOC120: Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility Prof. Thomas Reeder November 4, 2013 Relativism and Morality Moral choices are conducted on a daily basis, by every culture, which can be viewed on an ethical scale of right or wrong, by other cultures. In her writing of “Some Moral Minima”, Lenn E. Goodman views several aspects of morality and relativism, and argues that certain things are just wrong. In presenting my own morals, I agree with this statement; however, pondering the image, that only one accurate ethic exists and that we may be able to find universal moral requirements and arrive at a multiethnic agreement on issues presented by Goodman is a parable. In this paper, I will state my opinion on challenges Goodman presents to relativism. I will also provide my thoughts on if there are such universal moral requirements. In Goodman’s initial area of discussion of “Some Moral Minima; Genocide, Famine, and Germ Warfare (Goodman, L.E., 2010)”, she states “Genocide targets individuals as members of a group, seeking to destroy a race, a culture, a linguistic or ethnic identity (Goodman, L.E., 2010)”. I reflect back to after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were made on The United States. The threat of germ warfare became a very real aspect of war for our nation. Governmental groups, that we were at war against, were considering the decision to use this type of weapon in order to defeat their...
Words: 1212 - Pages: 5
...subjective truth is preferable to the narrow framework of objective morality. Rather than seeking absolute truth, information that accurately corresponds with reality, many are content reducing the essence of truth to a matter of personal preference. Unfortunately, this dangerous and deceptive philosophy has crept into every facet of the human experience in America, and the spirit of relativism has even infiltrated the Christian Church, an institution founded upon the doctrine of absolute truth and objective morality. This essay will explore the fundamental principles of relativism/subjectivism, showing the philosophy to be logically inconsistent, while demonstrating its incompatibility with Christianity. A Definition of Terms Before conducting a systematic analysis of relativism, a distinction between...
Words: 689 - Pages: 3
...Introduction This paper explores three philosophical issues. The concepts examined are personal identity, virtue ethics, and ethical relativism. A personal philosophy in relation to each concept is identified and described. In conclusion, philosophical findings are incorporated into a personal view on the ultimate meaning of life. Philosophical Issues Personal Identity Personal identity of the most basic nature is “what makes one the person one is” (Olson, 2010). This basic nature then leads to the complexities of personal identity. Complexities include questions such as: * Who am I? * What is it to be a person? * What does it take for a person to persist from one time to another – that is, for the same person to exist at different times? * How do we find out who is who? * What am I? * How could I have been? * How different could I have been from the way I actually am? (2010) These questions are crucial to discovering self-purpose of life. Hume’s philosophy is that personal identity is “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions” and “too inconstant” (n.d.). Several philosophers disagree, arguing that “when the soul and the body are united, then nature orders the soul to rule and govern, and the body to obey and serve” (Chaffee, 2011, p. 91). There are many theories of philosophy pertaining to personal identity and social identity. In most cases, the compulsion to rationalize identity by understanding and knowing who...
Words: 2142 - Pages: 9
...anthropological research to build her case for relativity and depends on different histories and environments of a few cultures. Rachels analyzes Cultural Relativism and justifies why it isn’t necessarily right or wrong. I have reviewed and thought about each of their arguments and have decided to side with James Rachels. The following paragraphs will be an attempt at showing why I believe both arguments seem to basically be equally strong with a slight lead by Ruth...
Words: 1844 - Pages: 8
...In Ethics, Public Policy, and Global Warming, Dale Jamieson argues that the issues surrounding climate change cannot be solved simply through scientific decision making; instead, he claims that morality plays a significant part in our quest to right the damage done to the environment. Jamieson describes traditional economic thought processes as being insufficient, as they merely deal with evaluating costs and benefits of a given situation. This way of thinking elicits criticisms similar to those of meta-ethical moral relativism. Meta-ethical moral relativism is flawed seeing that any claim can be made relative to virtually anything else in the world, so how does one make that decision? In the context of Jamieson’s paper, economic deliberation is flawed because there are infinite combinations of perspectives from which to assess costs and benefits. Are costs at the expense of people, corporations, animals, or trees? Then, in turn, to whom are the benefits allocated?...
Words: 643 - Pages: 3
...Katie Potter PHIL 213 Ethical Universalism vs. Ethical Relativism 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. Ethical universalism is the theory that there is a universal ethic that applies to all people, no matter the individual's history, preferences, traits or circumstances, and is applied to that individual at all times. Universalism principles are principles for everyone, all humans are granted equal rights therefore share the same values and views on what is right and wrong. Universalism is based on the idea that a rational test or standard can be applied to any ethical dilemma, however that rational test can vary among different groups of people. For example, a Utilitarian person would determine if an action is right by asking “does my action create the maximum good for the maximum number of people?” In a Utilitarians eyes, this action would be good and “universal”, but in another person's eyes this action could be morally or ethically wrong. That’s why I believe that there is little to no moral universalism...
Words: 648 - Pages: 3
...scope of moral values, properties, and words. Whereas the fields of applied ethics and normative theoryfocus on what is moral, metaethics focuses on what morality itself is. Just as two people may disagree about the ethics of, for example, physician-assisted suicide, while nonetheless agreeing at the more abstract level of a general normative theory such as Utilitarianism, so too may people who disagree at the level of a general normative theory nonetheless agree about the fundamental existence and status of morality itself, or vice versa. In this way, metaethics may be thought of as a highly abstract way of thinking philosophically about morality. For this reason, metaethics is also occasionally referred to as “second-order” moral theorizing, to distinguish it from the “first-order” level of normative theory. Metaethical positions may be divided according to how they respond to questions such as the following: * Ÿ What exactly are people doing when they use moral words such as “good” and “right”? * Ÿ What precisely is a moral value in the first place, and are such values similar to other familiar sorts of entities, such as objects and properties? * Ÿ Where do moral values come from—what is their source and foundation? * Ÿ Are some things morally right or wrong for all people at all times, or does morality instead vary from person to person, context to context, or culture to culture? Metaethical positions respond to such questions by examining the semantics...
Words: 21310 - Pages: 86
...can be said against them? Are they really reasonable for me to hold? Are their implications in this or that particular situation reasonable?” Ethics is the study of moral standards, the process of examining the moral standards of a person or society to determine whether these standards are reasonable or unreasonable in order to apply them to concrete situations and issues. The ultimate aim of ethics is to develop a body of moral standards that we feel are reasonable to hold standards that we have thought about carefully and have decided are justified standards for us to accept and apply to the choices that fill our lives. Ethics is not the only way to study morality. The social sciences such as anthropology, sociology and psychology also study morality, but do so in a way that is quite different from the approach to morality that is characteristic of ethics. Although ethics is a normative study the social sciences engage in a descriptive study of ethics....
Words: 4743 - Pages: 19
