There are many theories, which have been offered to explain where humans get their morality from and why. Often times being the exact opposite of each other. However, some theories have deliberate issues when trying to satisfy the Minimum Conception of Morality (MCM). The arguments against the basic principles of Cultural Relativism, Subjectivism in Ethics, the Divine Command Theory, the Natural Law Theory, and Ethical Egoism show us how these theories are not able to provide us a reasonably consistent concept of morality based on the views of the Minimum Conception of Morality.
Especially, James and Stuart Rachels define the two main points concerning the nature of morality in The Elements of Moral Philosophy: “first, moral judgments must be backed by good reason. Second, morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests” (10). Moral reasoning must be powered by facts and not how you feel. If we were state our feelings as facts then our society would not have been the same. “It is a
…show more content…
There are differences when the theory of Cultural Relativism is next to the Minimum Conception of Morality. For example, one can say Cultural Relativism cannot provide a reasonably consistent concept of morality is that we can form cultural independent standards of right and wrong when it comes to deciding if a certain thing is beneficial or harmful as a whole. Looking at the Japanese game Rape Lay “the point of the game is to score points by molesting and raping a young woman, her mother, and younger sister” (D2L Clips, Rape Lay). Now, rape is morally wrong, it is against the welfare of those affected, so we can easily say the idea of this game is immoral. Cultural Relativism teaches us not to critic the game’s concept since it comes from a different
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
Today's topic is on whether morality is completely relative or whether there are any moral absolutes. We as individuals and as a culture have certain sets of morals and ideals that we stand by. Whether or not certain morals carry over to various cultures or if morals are unique to that culture is left up to debate between Ruth Benedict and James Rachels. Today I will try to show that James Rachels argument is logically stronger than Ruth Benedict's argument
Cultural relativism is a theory, which entails what a culture, believes is what is correct for that particular culture, each culture has different views on moral issues. For example, abortion is permissible by American culture and is tolerated by the majority of the culture. While, Catholic culture is against abortion, and is not tolerated by those who belong to the culture. Cultural relativism is a theory a lot of individuals obey when it comes to making moral decisions. What their culture believes is instilled over generations, and frequently has an enormous influence since their families with those cultural beliefs have raised them. With these beliefs, certain cultures have different answers for different moral dilemmas and at times, it is difficult to decide on a specific moral issue because the individual may belong to multiple
In the paper I will discuss how ethics is or is not related to one’s culture or personal beliefs. I will also touch base on relativism as a universal theory and what that means.
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
Morality is, in many ways, a thorn in philosophy’s foot, struggling to abide by the standard of intellectual rigor typically held in the philosophical tradition. This is not particularly surprising. There is a high emotional and personal investment placed in morality and as such, even great minds can falter in their logical demands of morality. The issue of objectivism in ethics is particularly problematic. Lewis Vaughn’s arguments against ethical relativism in Bioethics show the difficulty of dismissing said theory’s possibility, all the while failing to provide his own evidence on behalf of ethical objectivism.
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
The debate of what us and is not moral has long been debated, a continuous search for answers explaining the purposes and origins of thought, actions, and being. With an attempt to answer these questions, many philosophers, religions, and people have examined these phenomena in the past (and still continue today) and drawn some similar and vastly different conclusions and theories. The Natural Law Theory pursues understanding of the way the world works in accordance with purpose. It seeks to determine if each object and occurrence indeed have a purpose, and what that purpose may be. Despite the evidence in support of it, the Theory of Natural Law does not rest on a sound argument.
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
David Hume and Immanuel Kant each made a significant break from other theorists in putting forward a morality that doesn’t require a higher being or god, for a man to recognize his moral duty. Although Hume and Kant shared some basic principals they differed on their view of morality. In comparing the different views on human will and the maxims established to determine moral worth by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, I find their theories on morality have some merit although limited in view.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.