Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism vs kantian ethics
Utilitarianism vs kantian ethics
The criticisms of cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism vs kantian ethics
Relativism: The Tangible Theory Since the beginning of rational thought, philosophers have searched for the true meaning of morality. Many theorists have attempted to answer this question with reasoning, in an attempt to find a universal set of rules, or a way to distinguish right from wrong. Some theorists believe that this question is best answered by a single moral standard, while others debate if there can be a single solution. Cultural Relativism explores the idea that there can be no one moral standard that applies to everyone at any given time. The Kantian theory, on the other hand, states that a universal sense of duty, would most benefit humankind. I believe that the Cultural Relativist theory takes into consideration the different cultures that make up the population as a whole. The idea of universal truth in ethics, is a myth. The customs of different societies are all that exist. These customs can not be ‘correct' or ‘ incorrect' for that implies there is an independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged. In today's global community people are interacting more and we are now discovering, more then ever, how diverse cultures and people really are. For these reasons the Cultural Relativist theory best defines what morality is, and where it came from. Today all over the world people are communicating in ways never before imagined. Cultural Relativism believes that one set of morals will not adequately adapt to the individuality of all the cultures and subcultures in the world. What this means is that there is no one moral law that fits every situation at every time. There will always be exceptions to the rules. Cultural Relativism leaves the creation of moral and ethical standards to the community. The community then makes moral judgments based on its specific culture, history, and individuality. For these reasons Cultural Relativism helps the community, by letting the community set its own moral standards, rather than impose a set of morals, as the absolutists would suggest. Imposing a set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the different cultural differences that exist today. If a universal moral law were to be created, what criteria would be considered? Would one use each communities's religion, customs, laws, educational standards, or cult... ... middle of paper ... ...the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought brought the most good and happiness, he would inevitably, after careful considerations of their relative merits, choose that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best." And this discredits the possibility that one such person can come up with a set of morals, or a true way to calculate those morals, because in fact everyone is biased to his or her own moral beliefs. Absolutism is obviously not a feasible solution due to the fact that the cultures of the world are too radically diverse to ever be able to be classified under one set of moral and ethical guidelines. I believe the Utilitarian idea of maximizing the good of the whole is also not feasible, on account of everyone not agreeing on what makes them the most happy. The Kantinisen sense of duty is discredited in the same way, on account of everyone's sense of duty being different. Although there will never be a moral or ethical theory that clearly includes all cultures as morally right, the Relativist theory is by far the most sensible solution offered to us at this time.
It says that it is that law, and that no other law can defy it. Also, we have our own moral laws that we use to make everyday decisions. In ancient Greece, they had a system of laws very similar to today's system.
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.
Morals are developed from the moment we are born to the moment we die, and are cultivated by what we see, hear, and do within our lives, but more importantly by the people we meet. In the world there are all manner of things for us to bear witness to, whether it be the beauty of birth or the gritty horror that is war, in either case men and women are shaped and changed by these events whether it be good or bad. The greek philosopher Aristotle is quoted as saying, “And to say what makes good morals vs what are bad ones is completely based on self, for no two people have the same upbringing, class, or position in life, for how is a slave who has known nothing but the brutality of his/her master to understand under what morals, owned by their
It has been stated that a person’s sense of morality deals with how he should act as a person, as opposed to acting on the basis of his race, ethnicity or religion. This statement therefore implies that all people should have the same set of morals. People should be concerned with how they should act as people in general and not let other aspects of who they are influence their sense of morality. But in the end this belief has been proven to be false. Different people across the world have contrasting moral reactions, natural responses and thoughts to moral dilemmas. (Fleischacker, 1994, p.8)
Over many years people have seemed to develop their thinking concerning morality based on resulting in interactions with individuals and social institutions. Different societies have their own cultures that have different ideas about how humans are to behave. Societies
In society today there are many religions and cultures that each in their own way preaches different values. Morality is a subject that is often studied and analyzed to evaluate how people act and why they act in that manner. Being moral refers to “what persons ought to do in order to conform to society’s norms of behavior” (Beauchamp, 1997, p.2). Without morality it would be very difficult to have expectations on how people would act within society. This would in turn impact day to day interactions with strangers as with no morals of how one should act to their neighbor, there would be no mutual trust. If someone questions the conventional customs and laws of their culture and religion, why should they be good? If someone does not want to conform to the norms of their religion, they will have little to no
By comparing, we are making morality reformed. Measuring people by the standard of morality is judging a person on their ability to conform to the perception of a perfect morality. Everyone’s truth is different in their eyes; therefore, people’s truths make others suspect each other. They are not observing what is opinion and fact. Comparing moralities advances our knowledge of morality in the Law of Human Nature.
Humans have notably different ethical standards which dictate what is or isn’t correct. Those standards are shared and followed by a group of people. For example, the concept of killing is not unknown. The typical response is to punish the one who commits that “crime,” even if that person was “right” to do so. However, killing may not seem like a crime to some people. Rather, to them killing is necessary for protection. Given that there are many cultures in the world, one can assume that each of those cultures is not like the other. They must all have their own ethical standards. In addition, it is suggested that a person refrains from assuming that one’s ethical standards are superior or inferior to another person’s standards. Cultural Relativism
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.
Even in a small society the individual beliefs of members may differ, but are subjected to the moral beliefs of the majority. With moral relativism individuals are too likely to disobey with the laws or morals of the society they belong too
Understanding this concept could be difficult if one does not realize what it means to have good morals. Morality is the distinction of knowing between right and wrong, good and bad. This judgment happens in everyday activities and can be as small as a little white lie or as big as killing someone. Studies show different ways of one’s morality forming. One way, researchers believe, is from one’s religion and what one believes in. If one is a Christian then they would learn from what God says is right or wrong in The Bible. If one is Islamic, one would believe what Allah says is right and wrong and what is in The Qur’an. One might also learn what is right from wrong from...
Now, I personally believe that people absolutely should be moral for several reasons. The main one being. I believe that it 's natural for people to want to do the right thing and that deep down they want to do the right thing, but through circumstances, the understanding of
...hat God is the only possible source of such standards. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have us believe, then, what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality.
Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged.
the Golden Rule approach. We are told that it is right to be moral. This is an