...RUNNING HEAD: RELATIVISM AND MORALITY Relativism and Morality Kaleen Cheney SOC/120 Russell Tompkins February 2, 2013 RUNNING HEAD: RELATIVISM AND MORALITY PAGE 1 In reading the Lenn Goodman Some Moral Minima, I have to agree that certain things are simply wrong. The issues such as genocide, famine, germ warfare, terrorism, hostages, child warriors, slavery, polygamy, and incest are all topics that Goodman discusses that I have to agree that I have the same point of view as. I agree with Goodman because he says that “culture or character do not matter much morally”, but “personal and cultural difference do set a tone”. Relativism is the belief that nothing is ‘wrong’, that each culture has the right to choose their definitions of what is right or wrong. Morals are personal taught behaviors of right and wrong actions and or behaviors. No matter what religion, race, or culture you are from, some things are just simply wrong. Goodman is very good at describing that every person whether it be a man, woman, or child has the rights to live and be free from any and all inhumane treatment. Terrorism, Hostages, and Child Warriors are the first of Goodman’s topics. We hear every day about terrorism and hostages but for me child warriors are a topic that I have kind of forgotten about. Child warriors are something that I personally think is a topic that does not fit with the Moral Minima in my opinion. We agree that certain things are just simply wrong but in...
Words: 1001 - Pages: 5
...Relativism and Morality: The Truth of Universal Morality SOC 120 Monica Jones August 13, 2012 Relativism and Morality: The Truth of Universal Morality Lenn Goodman explains in Some Moral Minima that there are many norms in terms of morals. Such subjects that Goodman mentions is slavery, polygamy, rape, incest, clitoridectomy, terrorism, hostages, child warriors, genocide, famine, and germ warfare. These topics send a shiver down the spine of most people. There is a deep moral understanding of right and wrong when it comes to such things as Goodman mentions. These topics expand past any country or culture boundaries. This is a matter of being human and understanding what penetrates the core of our humanity. Things such as slavery, hostages, and forced famine are all things that strike at the very heart of humanity. Humanity is the basic connection between all races, cultures, and connects our overall existence as a whole. Once our humanity is chipped away at by another we can see where the wrong doing lays. The preservation of life and the freedom to live life is what is most wrong to take away. Essentially a moral norm is things that our universal human morality should prevent that rob others of life, dignity, survival, and one’s own will. The targeting of one culture for mass murder is universally wrong for robs others of life for something completely out of their control. Genocide is a destruction of a race or culture past, present, and future generations. Morally, this...
Words: 1129 - Pages: 5
...Relativism and Morality Week 2 Assignment: Relativism and Morality Jody Herrig SOC 120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Prof. Linda Atkinson Monday, February 25, 2013 Relativism and Morality Relativism is a concept that forges reality advancing assumptions which declare nothing to be absolutely true or valid. This is so because what has been proven true or valid is always based on personal perceptions which may be influenced by various predisposing factors. Often they may be merely subjective sentiments which are not universal since they only represent the view point of a few, the minority, majority or imposition of a dictator (Baghramian, 2004). When conceptualized within the context of morality it impinges on the framework that truth is applicable only as it pertains to specific guidelines and adaptations. Hence, if morality then becomes as issue in determining truth; it is sieving intentions to decipher purity and whether they are based on justice or outcomes that are beneficial to all. Therefore, this section of my presentation will focus on Lenn Goodman’s (2010) ‘Some Moral Minima:’ A Perspective. Also, a discussion on whether the conceptual framework advanced by this author challenges relativism will be embraced as well as a personal analysis of the themes. Lenn Goodman- ‘Some Moral Minima:’ A Perspective Lenn Goodman (2010) as any social scientist has to justify the morals of society. To say otherwise...
Words: 269 - Pages: 2
...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
...Relativism and Morality SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility March 12, 2012 I have many thoughts on the subjects discussed by Lenn Goodman in his article. Determining whether Goodman is right or wrong is simply a matter of opinion, it is the perception of the person or people who believe in these ways. It is my strong belief that what Goodman is stating in his article is right. “Granted, any norm, to be effectual, must be embedded in the thick of life.”(Goodman, 2010) Discussing the different areas in which Goodman talks about in his article the first is Genocide, Famine, and Germ Warfare. “All living beings make claims to life.” (Goodman, 2010) Goodman tries to compare murder and warfare in this article. I can agree with him on the fact that murder is wrong, but at the same time there must be some type of line drawn to determine whether this act is committed on behalf of wants, needs, or desire. There are many different facets of murder, all having the same end state of death. Some commit this act of violence on the cause of jealousy or envy which speaks on that individual’s character. Sometimes murder may be committed in acts of self-defense, in these cases I would say that this violent act would possibly be excusable due to the constraints of the situation (either he dies or I die). In this term it is a matter of survival going to the mere basics of humanity. Within the confines of murder comes genocide. Genocide unlike murder...
Words: 763 - Pages: 4
...Relativism and Morality In this article, “Some Moral Minima” by Lenn E. Goodman, he expresses his views about situations that he feels that are wrong. He explains and argues the wrong in murder, terrorism, hostages, slavery, rape, polygamy, and incest. He provides detailed examples of why he believes these things are wrong. I agree with him on these issues that are proven to be wrong morally. I do not believe that any one should take advantage of another person in any way i.e. discriminating or taking their life because it is unmoral in my opinion. One of the main points that the author wrote about was murder. Murder is a wrong and unmoral act and I do not feel any individual should have the right to end someone’s life for no reason at all or even if there is a reason. Who has the right to take a life? Goodman states “Murder is wrong because it destroys a human subject”. (pg.88 par.9) In Genesis 9:6 the Bible states “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” and the only time I feel someone should be killed is if they are in the process of harming another individual’s life or if they have taken someone’s life. For example, if a person is in danger it should be a giving right for them to defend themselves and if someone kills another person they should be persecuted and put to death. In his article one of the types of murders he talked about was genocide. Genocide is type of murder that targets individuals as members of a group, seeking to destroy...
Words: 921 - Pages: 4
...Relativism and Morality Donna Hare Ashford University Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility SOC 120 Vahik Ovanessian November 25, 2012 Relativism and Morality In Lenn E. Goodman’s article “Some Moral Minima,” he argues that there are some things that are just wrong. I will discuss some of the issues discussed and give my opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with his opinions. Relativism in itself is whether an action is right or wrong that depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. What may be morally right in one culture can be viewed as morally wrong in another. In saying this, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to accomplish moral standards equally universally to apply to all people at all times. Different societies with their differences on moralism make it impossible to resolve moral disputes or to reach an agreement on ethical matters. The moral standards that each society practices really can only be judged by their own society. The areas that Lenn Goodman discussed is genocide, politically induced famine (depravation), germ warfare, terrorism, hostage taking, child warrior, polygamy, incest, slavery, rape, and female genital cutting. Lenn Goodman first discusses “Genocide, Famine, and Germ Warfare.” I agree with the statement that because murder destroys a human subject, it is wrong. I believe all societies know murder is wrong in of itself generally speaking. On the other hand, I believe...
Words: 2824 - Pages: 12
...Relativism and Morality 9/12/2012 SOC/120 The study of ethics can shed new light on old motifs in society. In "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman offers discourse on several areas, each with multiple sub-topics. While some are subject matter for the nightly news, others are generally discussed with a hushed tone in American society. I find Mr. Goodman's paper to be well-written and, in general, quite in line with my perspective on these subjects. Additionally, he offers information as a means to create discussion, rather than judgment. At the top of Mr. Goodman's list are the topics of genocide, famine, and germ warfare, and their intentional application on various peoples. Genocide seeks "to destroy a race, culture, a linguistic or ethnic identity, even a class," (Goodman, L., 2010, pg. 2) operating successfully through fear, intimidation, and violence. The Armenian Genocide, in which many of my ancestors perished, is a perfect example of attempting to destroy an ethnic identity. Through the employment of "deportation, expropriation, torture, massacre, and starvation," the Turkish government attempted genocide upon the entire Armenian population between the years of 1915 and 1923. This all occurred thirty-three years prior to the adoption of the UN Genocide Convention, but still received worldwide condemnation as a "crime against humanity" (http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html), Leaders seeking to wipe out an entire population as a means of control is not new...
Words: 1100 - Pages: 5
...Based on different sociology dissertations, morality has been an issue that many societies globally have been trying to deal with. This term is used to describe the code of acceptable behaviors in a given society or culture. On the other hand, moral minima is a word that goes along with morality. This sets a standard by which the people in the society have to follow so that they may be living within the limits of proper moral conduct. The advent of civilization has given room to various forms that come from moral minima. As such, morality has become an issue that is interpreted in different ways depending how one looks or evaluates it (Goodman, 2010, p.87). Therefore, this has given rise to at least three areas where morality is supposedly received or obtained. Firstly, morality can be considered relative to the laws of a given nation so that what the law says is right. Second, morality can be said to have also come from religion where the various religions have their own holy books by which members are told to behave in a certain way. Finally, it is the personal source of morality. This is what has sparked a lot of controversy in many subject to millions of interpretation and understandings. Consequently, this is what I believe started influential philosophers like Lenn Goodman into argument that there are some things, which are certainly wrong. In this regard, this study seeks to explore the credits or challenges Goodman presents in his assertions (Goodman, 2010, p.88). In...
Words: 805 - Pages: 4
...Real Relativism and Morality Jeff MacDougall SOC 120 Instructor Tirizia Lorene York February 25, 2013 Everything that Lenn Goodman argues makes a great point. Lenn Goodman sees the morality and lack of morality in the lives of different cultures, which is what makes this world a good and a bad place. Away for the sake of gaining respect or wealth, Goodman basically discusses that every person whether it be man, woman, or child has the rights to live and be free from any and all inhumane treatment. Relativism is the idea that one’s beliefs and values are understood of one’s society culture or even one’s own individual values (Mosser, 2010). With that being said everyday a person from a culture conducts some kind of moral choice. The moral choice that he or she chooses may be viewed as right or wrong by other cultures. In this paper “some moral minima” by Lenn E. Goodman there are views of different aspects of morality and relativism and Goodman argues that certain things are just wrong. Goodman discusses issues on subjects such as slavery, genocide, terrorism, murder, rape, polygamy, and incest. I agree with Goodman on these issues because these is never a good time to kill for the sake of killing, rape for the sake of sex, or take ones rights away for the sake of gaining respect or wealth. Goodman basically discusses that every person whether it be man, woman, or child has the rights to live and be free from any and all inhumane treatment. Goodman’s main understanding...
Words: 1044 - 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
...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
...In the text “Master and Slave Moralities” by Friedrich Nietzsche, two main oppositions “good” and “bad” were discussed by utilising the differences between master morality and slave morality. Nietzsche describes the master morality, slave morality and his ideas does not connect with ethical relativism but they are closely related to egoism. Primarily, he talks about nobles as an example of master morality. Nobles thinks of themselves as “good”. The reason behind this is the fact that they are coming from aristocratic society and wealth. They think of other people who are not noble, for example peasants and slaves, as “bad”. A noble person doesn’t even look at other people for approval, he is self confident, he creates values. In addition, he explains the slave morality. Because of being a member of working class, they lack self-confidence. First they look at other people, rather than creating their own values. A slave doesn’t have an ego, he looks at others to find himself. Slaves think that noble people are evil. In contrast to the noble class, slaves are the pessimistic type. They feel resentment. They are envious towards the nobles. According to Nietzsche, only slaves can feel resentment. They seek freedom and an instinct for the happiness. A slave is sceptical and distrustful. Furthermore, ethical relativism is the idea that there is no objective right or wrong. Right and wrong behaviour differs from a person to person. Everyone has different views. There are two types...
Words: 636 - Pages: 3
...Ethics - ETHICAL THEORY 1 Relativism and absolutism | This is the actual essay written by my student in the June 2009 exam. To access the mark scheme for this paper click here (and go to page 8). I particularly like her use of link words to develop an argument, so I've highlighted them in blue. She scored 100% on this question. There is a small error that she attributes Ruth Benedict's quote to William Sumner. PBHow would a moral relativist define good? G572 Q1 June 2009a) Explain the concept of relativist morality.A moral relativist would question "what do we mean by good?" when deliberating the best, most moral action to take when faced with an ethical decision. An example of a relativist moral statement is, "I ought not to steal because I will cause suffering to those I still from." This is a reasonable statement, considering the consequences of a potential action. It is teleological, in that it is concerned with ends (Greek word "telos" meaning end or purpose). Relativism is in direct contrast with absolute morality which is deontological and concerned with the actions themselves. A moral relativist would not believe that there is a fixed set of moral rules that apply to all people all times, in all places. Rather, they would leave the morality is changeable and differs culture to culture time to time, and place to place. This idea is known as cultural relativism.The theory of relativist morality was first established by Protagoras who asked the question "what is good...
Words: 984 - Pages: 4
...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 right...
Words: 1601 - Pages: 7
