Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism
Difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism
Moral realism vs moral relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Meta ethics refers to a category of analytic philosophy that focuses on the social or professional position, foundation and extent of the moral values, characteristics and words. There are a number of theories related to the Meta ethics that are designed to support various types of moral thinking and actions(Jacobs, 2002). Meta ethics have been considered as an abstract and impressionistic way of thinking, therefore, Meta ethics is placed second to the normative theory of philosophy. Meta ethics have been part of western philosophy since the beginning of philosophy; however, in the beginning of the 20thcentury, Meta ethics grabbed the attention of a great audience(Jacobs, 2002). The basic question of the Meta ethics is how to find what is right …show more content…
Moral realism tells about certain things that are usually right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances, culture and societies. For example, discrimination and theft are wrong in all cultures and societies because it has a number of bad consequences. Russ Shafer Land auargues that the best thing about moral realism is that they are intrinsically normative or in other words, they are always giving some good reasons, regardless of the beliefs and wishes of a person(Shafer-Landau, 2005). The moral realism is helping people to judge the advantages and disadvantages of a certain action or thing (right or wrong) for its justification. On the other hand, moral realism is narrowing the freedom of individuals, societies and cultures in numerous circumstances. The facts that are presented by the moral realism are usually not found in a real time society. Similarly, the moral relativism has also a number of advantages such as a freedom of making decisions as per the nature and demand of a particular situation; it has helped in tolerating various cultures, and it allowed individuals to express their feelings about the universal truths and cultural facts that they believe are wrong(Lukes, 2008). On one hand, moral relativism has empowered individuals in making their own decisions regarding
Ethical theories may be usefully divided into two main types, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they take one or the other of these kinds of judgments as primary. (1) In the main, ancient ethical theories were eudaimonist in both form and content (in the kinds of judgments and terms they took as primary, and in the questions they spent the most time investigating). Most modern ethical theories have been deontological, again in both form and content. (2) Aristotle’s central question is: What is the good life for a human being? Kant and Mill’s central question is: What are our duties to our fellow human beings? My second main contention, which I cannot fully argue for here, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we attempt to subsume both types under some higher ethical synthesis.
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
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
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
Thiroux, Jacques P., and Keith W. Krasemann. Ethics: Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.
To begin, David Enoch defends moral realism using his Indispensability Argument. Firstly, Enoch argues that universally objective and irreducible normative (and by extension moral) truths do exist, or at the very least people are justified in believing in them. His argument for their existence encompasses the idea that normative truths are indispensable to human deliberation and decision making. That is to say, when people are deliberating they make reference to these universal normative truths, about what they ought and not ought to do in certain situations. This type of deliberation is separate from such acts as simply “picking” or following something such as desire, although both have phenomenal characteristics. Picking, he argues, is more or less like making an arbitrary decision, such as which flavor of chips to buy. However, deliberation is different, wherein it aims to make the “right” or “correct” decision, which is why it is related to morality. An example of this might be something as simple as figuring out which bus gets from point A to point B faster, which involves there being a correct answer, as well as something more complex, such as whether one should lie to his/her friend in order to protect them from emotional pain. Basically, intuitively, people tend to feel what the “right” and “...
Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgement can only goes as far a one person’s standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. What I hope to prove in my thesis statement are inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism.
Aristotle's and Kant's ideas of the means and ends of moral ethics are in sharp contrast. Both have strengths and weaknesses in their arguments, but Aristotle's is superior to Kant's because it is more realistic. I will first give the basis of both philosophies, Aristotle first, Kant second. Next, I will expand and question points of both philosophies, Aristotle's end, and Kant's means. Lastly, I will explain the reasoning behind why I favor Aristotle's ethics over Kant's. Both philosophies appeals to reason, but they come to different conclusions.
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
In this paper, I argue about the applicability of virtue ethics which is one of three major branches of normative ethics. The subject of virtue ethics is normally defined as one that puts emphasis on virtues which are also known as moral character. The branch is in contrast to the majority of the approaches which places a lot of emphasizes on responsibilities and rules. The practice is also known as deontology or the practice which emphasizes on the results of actions. It is also known as consequentialism (Swanton,11).The way virtue ethics is applied in modern philosophy should be clearly evaluated.
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.
Philosopher David Hume divided the term “ethics” into three distinctive areas; meta-ethics, which focuses on the language used when talking about ethical issues. The general approach to this area of ethics is, it explores the nature of moral judgement, and it looks at the meaning of ethical principles. Normative ethics tries to find practical moral code that we can live by. It is concerned with the content of moral judgements and the criteria for what is right and wrong. Finally applied-ethics is the application of ethical theories and using them in real life issues such as medical research or human rights (Hume D, 2011).