How Morality is Culturally Relative Abstract Within this world that we live in, there is an enormous amount of people. Each of these people belongs to different cultures and societies. Every society has traits and customs that make it unique. These societies follow different moral codes. This means that they will may have different answers to the moral questions asked by our own society. What I am trying to say is that every society has a different way of analyzing and dealing with life's events, because of their cultural beliefs. This is claim is known as Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the correct view of ethics. 1. Different societies have different moral codes. 2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. 3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many. 4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times. 5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. Page 2 How Morality is Culturally Relative: How I went about it. Above are six claims that help explain the notion of Cultural Relativism. This psychology experiments arguments will help to illustrate them directly and indirectly. It will be clear that the true answer to the question of ethics is, Cultural Relativism. The subject of murder is probably the most common issue thought to be a moral absolute. What I mean is, people think it is wrong to kill another human being. This is not always the case; murder has its place in many cultures. In Rachels article, the Eskimos practice infanticide as well as the killing of elders. The elders are too feeble to contribute to the group but; they still consume precious food, which is scarce. This practice is necessary for the survival of the of the group. The males within the Eskimo tribes have a high... ... middle of paper ... ... values are whether we would endanger our lives as well as our families over a supersticious belief. People in our western society would not starve their families over a supersticious belief!, but the people in this society Rachels described would. This is definitely not the same value system. So these cultures do have different ethical principals. What I found was that Morality does play a factor in culturally relativeness, to tell you the truth Mr.Murphy all you can really dpeend on is that there a set of rules that eveyrone see’s, some say they are not right some say they are. If you really want to how Morality is judged, look at the actions of somebody of a certain culture, then figure out if they follow their own moral values, there is yourt answer. Page 6 Works: 1.Chanthomme, R. (1973). Morality 2.Oxford’s Guide to Morality. (1999) copyright 1998. Simon and Shuster 3.Our textbook
Since Holden was isolated from his family, in order to not get hurt again he tries to find hypocrisy in people to stop himself from trusting others. Holden feels isolated after being sent to a boarding school that “was full of phonies” by his parents (Salinger 90). Salinger’s message to the audience with this quote is that when
3) This quote reflects the overall theme because it is one of many quotes in the book that show Holden's fear of growing up. For example, he always describes adults as "phony" and children as innocent.
To conclude, Holden try’s desperately on holding on to his innocents. Triggered by the loss of his brother, Holden makes it his mission to protect kids from there inevitable maturity, sealing them from phony’s and. When he realised that he could not achieve the qoel of saving all children from growing up Holden has a nervous breakdown. He dosint understand the proses of life ad he can’t pick to stay a child for ever when in reality growing up is inevitable. ‘’We've let the blade of our innocence dull over time, and it's only in innocence that you find any kind of magic, any kind of courage.”
Society establishes their own rules of morality, but would they be accepted in these days?
Throughout his essay, Professor Beckwith critiques the arguments primarily used to support moral relativism from cultural and individual differences. Beckwith states that there are four main problems with moral relativism: relativism does not follow from disagreement, disagreement counts against moral relativism, disagreement is overrated, and absurd consequences follow from moral relativism.
part of the moral code of our society; and the task of moral philosophy consists in bringing
Holden had a tough time fitting in at his schools because he thought of almost everyone as phonies. "`It's full of phonies, and all you do is study so that you can learn enough to be smart enough to be able to buy a goddam Cadillac some day, and you have to keep making believe you give a damn if the football team loses, and all you do is talk about girls and liquor and sex all day, and everybody sticks together in these dirty little goddam cliques' (pg. 131)." He seems to have a history of expulsion and failure at various schools because of his lack of ability to cope with others. Ordinary problems of his had turned into major conflicts with other students. "I hate fist fights. I don't mind getting hit so much - although I'm not crazy about it, naturally - but what scares me most in a fist fight is the guy's face. I can't stand looking at the other guy's face, is my trouble. It wouldn't be so bad if you could both be blindfolded or something. It's a funny kind of yellowness, when you come to think of it, but it's yellowness, all right. I'm not kidding myself. (pg. 90)" Holden got into a fight with his roommate at school because he was going out with his ex-girlfriend. He's afraid that the guy is taking her from him, even though he's not with her anymore. These are problems that are normal, but Holden has trouble dealing with them.
He hated the world for taking away his role model and he felt desolate even though he was surrounded by people who cared about his well-being. The immense buildup of emotions only precipitated him to become abrasive to others instead of passive. “I took the bag off of her. I was almost all set to hit her. I thought I was going to smack her for a second. I really did” (Salinger). Holden loved his sister, however the powerful urge he has to hit her is uncharacteristic for him. Before he wasn’t one to lash out on others, except when things went out of his control. When he was no longer in control he lashed out, for example, after Allie died, Holden broke the garage window in resentment. These abrasive outbreaks only cause Holden to hurt those around him and force his estrangement from others as well as society even worse. As most readers notice when the story continues, Holden quickly becomes a loathed character. This critic proves this as well, “A year or so later I read it in my high school English class and concluded that he was a narcissistic wimp” (Bardi). Holden was so focused on his own emotions that he had no apprehension with the way he treated others. This lead to his own failure and separation from those who sought to guide
The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
The morals of society concept is exemplified by the Judeo-Christian religions. These religions base their moral principles on their respective religious texts that they believe to contain God’s will.
The first mistake is in his comparison following the example of there being different moral codes. In outlining and explaining the cultural differences argument, he gives an example that he began the article with regarding the Callatians and the Greeks, and their differences in funerary practices. Rachels asks that "from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter?" His answer is that "no," and that the answer one could derive is that one of those beliefs is altogether incorrect and wrong. Here Rachels' statement seems to negate that which he wants to negate but it is through manipulation of the parties involved and the adding of "facts' that aren't there. These two cultures in his example to not disagree about anything, there are simply two different ways they deal with death. Because they are different, doesn't necessarily imply there is any disagreement. So my answer is yes, this example does mean that there is no objective truth, because we cannot say that their practice (Greeks vs. the Callatians) is incorrect or immoral as much as they can say our practices are immoral. To label a culture's belief in certain practices as possibly being "mistaken," doesn't sound very openminded in any way at all.
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
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
3. Allow for the fact that ethical questions do not always have a unique, faultless answer.
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.