Am I a relativist or an objectivist? Do I believe what is right and wrong is decided on how I feel about the situation, or what the act committed was and the consequences of it? Well, to be an objectivist, that means I believe that what is right and wrong is decided on what kind of act was committed and what the consequences would be to that act. To be a relativist, that means I believe what is right or wrong is decided on what I personally think of the act committed. After thinking about that, I’ve decided that I am, without a doubt, a relativist. I understand that people believe in different things than I do and I accept those people from believing in things differently than I do, like Pojman says. I also have my own set of morals, but I …show more content…
I believe that if someone were to be an objectivist, they aren’t accepting of this concept of people being different and having different ethics and morals than they do, and that’s where there are many issues and arguments. They believe that everyone should believe in the same ethics and morals as they do and are not accepting to the idea of people having different ethics and morals as they do. They think it is completely unacceptable for someone to think differently than they do. That is not the right way to go about having different ethics and morals. People should be accepting to the diversity there is when it comes to morals and ethics because this creates the ability to discuss upon it and learn how and why people believe in the things they do. There are many reasons why I am a relativist and where I think morals …show more content…
At this moment in life, everyone has their own ethical code and morals based on their culture and there are no issues with these differences. People are not angry and they are not fighting. If there are no problems with how things are now, then why bother to change it and create a problem? Creating a set of ethical codes that every person in the world has to follow, only creates and unneeded and unnecessary problem. There is no need to change the way things are and create chaos, which is exactly what would happen by making the set of ethical rules. Why should it matter if someone has a different ethical code than us? It really should not, because I think it is a childish thing to worry about. Everyone has their own beliefs and it should not matter. We should be accepting of these differences and enjoy the diversity in the world. This is what makes us different from every other person in the world. If everyone was so worried about what other people thought about them, then nobody would leave their house with the fear of being judged for who they are and what they believe in. If we want to keep almost everyone in the world happy, then we need to keep things as they are. There is no need for one set of ethical codes and no need for everyone to have the same morals. No two minds think alike, so we cannot make all the minds in the world think the same way and have the same beliefs. A part of
The difference between absolutism and objectivism is that where objectivists believe that there are universal moral principles in which people of all ethical backgrounds and cultures have the validity to follow, absolutists believe that there are underlying values within these beliefs that strictly cannot ever be over-ridden, violated or broken under any circumstances (REF). Furthermore, while absolutists believe in this notion that moral principles are ‘exception-less’, objectivists strongly follow the notion that life is situational and that we as humans have to adapt accordingly to the variables that arise, take them into account, and then make a decision accordingly (REF). Within this introduction of variables applicable to any situation, it is therefore believed that each moral principle must be weighed against each other to produce the best possible outcome, and this is where the overriding of values occurs in an objectivists view, and where an absolutist would disregard these circumstances.
Ethical relativism is a perspective that emphasizes on people's different standards of evaluating acts as good or bad. These standard beliefs are true in their particular society or circumstances, and the beliefs are not necessarily example of a basic moral values. Ethical relativism also takes a position that there are no moral right and wrongs. Right and wrongs are justified based on the particular social norms. Martin Luther King's moral critique against racial injustice is reliable with the idea of ethical relativism. Dr. King took a moral judgment that institutionalized racism is unacceptable in America about the nature of ethical truth. King's moral views about the discrimination of blacks in the United States were inappropriate. His
Yes, there can be different moral rules for different ethnic and cultural groups. Every culture should be allowed to follow their own set of moral rules to a certain extent .
Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
Your own morality should only serve in relation to how it affects you and your existence. For all intents and purposes each person’s time and universe would revolve around their own finite looping life. The only culture that would matter for each individual is that of their singular experience and how their actions affect their ability to live with themselves. The fact that you might do something that clashes with another cultures ethics wouldn’t matter beyond any possible repercussions it might have on you. There would be no future that matters to come as a result of your decisions or actions beyond the one that you perceive and exist in. The only moral obligation you would have is to yourself and you should “lead an unconstrained life exuberantly celebrating everything you want to do and be” (Brusseau, 2012) and who cares how it might affect or be perceived by others.
According to Tännsjö (2007), we all have our own moral universes that consists of moral codes that are relevant only to our universe. In Wong’s account of Velleman, (2016), he states that in a relativist world we are each on our own moral islands, independent of everyone else’s rules and judgments. Moral relativism also includes the acceptance of both contradicting moralities possibly being correct (Tännsjö, 2007. Hugly & Sayward, 1985). For example, if one person from one moral universe believes that something is right, but another one believes that this same thing is wrong, moral relativism states that within their own contexts and beliefs this action could be justified as both wrong and right (Tännsjö, 2007). Moral relativism essentially argues that morality is formed through every individual’s own perception and shares very little between moral universes or moral
“Subjective relativism says that action X is right for Ann if she approves of it yet wrong for Greg if he disapproves of it. (Vaughn, 2013, p. 23) This moral perspective is foolproof, based on the premise that individuals can each have their own views and beliefs yet both perspectives are without judgement. Therefore, if I state that cases of abortion that are a product of rape are morally acceptable then one cannot argue with me. This theory is solely based on personal perspectives of the subject, there is no debating legal rights of the mother or the fetus in question. This theory is can be best summed up by simply stating “That is your
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
I think it is completely unfair to only have one set of ethical rules that everyone has to follow, which is why I believe I am a relativist. To make everyone have the same morals and ethical codes would only cause people to become angry because they cannot express who they are and what they believe in. As human beings, we have the right to express who we are and what we believe in as an individual to an extent. Taking this away from us would cause many problems and would not be a positive thing to do. Should we really make millions, maybe even billions, of people angry because they can no longer express who they are as an individual? That is not the right thing to do. I do not think that is morally right and it should never be
Moral objectivity is the rejection of enthnocentricism, or belief that one’s culture is superior than others. In short, one’s cultural beliefs cannot fundamentally be legitimate morals in the sense that they do not have to follow the “objective” morals. For example, Pojman supports a view stating that morals are universal, that they are "objective" in regard to it being that it doesn 't matter about what a culture defines as moral or immoral, that certain morals are undebatable. Such as for example, torturing children for fun is wrong. This is objectively true no matter what the world says otherwise; another example being that some still think the Earth is flat. In other words, moral objectivism states that "moral standards are true or correct for everybody"2. Thus moral objectivists tend to look at morals as absolutes. Pojman argued that humans are social creatures and that as humans, we did not want to live as "hermits"(first edition, 33), thus certain agreements must be made in order to attain community. Explaining further that agreements are "human nature" and that agreements are at the "core" of morality, as well as stating that to "flourish as a person" we agree to these moral codes in order to maintain harmony and peace. Morals in an evolutionary perspective, allow humans to survive. Such as for example, murder or killing other humans deemed as immoral or wrong. Pojman gives the example of serial murder Ted Bundy, who in his mind believed that killing people was O.K because it made him happy. He believed that killing and raping others is completely fine because those were his morals and what he personally believed in. This disturbs the social harmony and a moral objectivist would beg the question of whether it is right to murder and rape others because one or culture views it as acceptable. Same question can be asked about Hitler, as Pojman did, does it make it acceptable and justifiable that because Hitler and the
Moral relativists believe that no one has the right to judge another individuals choice, decisions, or lifestyle because however they choose to live is right for them. In addition everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs and to impose those beliefs on another individual is wrong. At first glance moral relativism may appear ideal in allowing for individual freedom. After all why shouldn’t each individual be entitled to their own idea of moral values and why should others force their beliefs on anyone else. “American philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), tells us, what is right is only what the individual thinks is right. There is no higher court of appeals, no higher, universal, or absolute moral standard.” (pg 121) Moral relativism means if does not feel wrong than it must be right.
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
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.
...bly in the world today. The creation of global moral standards would start the slippery slope to imperialism where the dominating moral codes would rule the rest of the world and therefore corrode the cultures of the lesser states. Every society could take a lesson from moral relativism by being tolerant and understanding of other’s beliefs.
a set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the different