Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
MOral relativism defended
MOral relativism defended
MOral relativism defended
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: MOral relativism defended
In society is it generally been accepted that rules are needed to be able to function properly in our everyday lives. Laws are created to create civilized societies, without which society would begin to crumble. There are many views on how a good society should be and many theories put in place. Rachels’ provides us two separate theories that demonstrate two different ways we place rules on the society.
Firstly, Rachels’ presents Relativism, one of the oldest philosophical theories about morality. It states that right and wrong depend on each individual’s society. This theory highlights that moral relativism is the belief that there are no absolute moral truths. This teaches us that what may be true for one individual may not necessarily
…show more content…
For example, one culture may consider virginity, freedom and religion highly valuable, and can be considered irrelevant or even wrong in another. Other things in society such as practicing female circumcision are moral and in another societies could be wrong, when faced with the idea of genital mutation. In certain societies the beating of a wife when she steps out of culturally ascribed roles is not seen as immoral but to others such acts would often result in punishments. So this demonstrates that what is considered right or wrong is dependent on the society that builds those …show more content…
However, if you mother is a bad, deceptive, lying and controlling person, who beats you this idea of your mother probably will change and love becomes removed. In such a scenario it may still be presented as a divine command to love your mother but it may not be good for you. It further questions what people may believe God wants, for someone with a psychological disorder, he may claim that God commanded him to rape another person, this would mean that rape in this scenario would be moral because he is ‘doing what God commands’. Others would however disagree and question how could God ever command such a
That morality is not relative, Rachel argues, “ Claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish”. She argues that we do not need morality because of culture differences and values based on where we are. Also talks about what can be learned from relativism and states that because of it morality is not needed and know what to do based on their moral codes.
Relativism can be hard to understand. It’s in our nature as human beings to base thing off of the knowledge we already know. Relativism is the idea that, when faced with another culture, we must try to comprehend it instead of judging it based on our own culture’s values and morals. Human rights advocates opposing the tradition of female genital modification (FGM) is an example of relativism (page 30). Female genital modification can include the removal of the clitoris or a process in which the female anatomy is modified in such a way that constricts the vaginal opening. Both procedures reduce female sexual pleasure and, it is believed to prevent the likelihood of adultery. Although a tradition in societies in Africa and the Middle East, human
As we all know, all humans are different and that people do things differently around the world. People dress differently, eat differently, speak different languages, sing different songs, have different music and dances and have many different customs. In, cultural relativism is appropriate in some respects. For example, food, clothing, language, and driving rules are different within cultures, and it is important that these relative differences remain. However, these are not issues of universal "right" and "wrong," mathematical certainty, or issues of "truth." In a relativistic society, we have no right to judge or punish anyone. Right and wrong are now defined by socialization. Society changes and morality becomes a moving target. In fact, if the standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then society has no standards at
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
(IEP) Relativism is related to the theory of morals where the acceptance of its views and actions is based upon the culture, the people within the society, and the overall outlook based upon a specific group of individuals. The idea and practice of relativism causes much controversy around the world amongst different cultures and societies. Although relativism can vary amongst different cultures based upon the morals, beliefs, and values that are considered accepted, the theory behind relativism can be practiced as a universal theory. Children in society are raised according to how their parents want to raise them. Parents practice the way they raise their children based upon what their society accepts and/or how they were raised by their parents. Children become developed into believing how they were raised is true, therefore, they will one day raise their own children in the exact same practice. As these children grow and develop, they will learn to understand whether or not their actions and what they say are accepted or not accepted within their
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
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.
While moral relativism may seem appealing due to the fact that if and individuals behavior feels right to them than it is right for them. When applying this position of morals to everyday situations it revealed to be a fairy tale in search of individualism. Unless everyone lives in a bubble where they have no interaction with anyone else moral relativism is just not pragmatic. Consider if you were mugged, during the altercation, you were beaten, injured and your personal belongings were stolen. After applying moral relativism to this situation, the conclusion is that the person who mugged you did absolutely nothing wrong. The person you feel may have violated you as an individual felt that their actions were right. Why would this person submit you to this behavior? This not a question that a moral relativist would ask because they have no right to influence or question another’s moral values. In addition t...
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.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
As we all have observed, throughout history each culture or society has unique norms that are acceptable to that group of people. Therefore, to establish and come to the acceptance of these basic norms, each society must develop its’ own strategies and techniques to encourage the fundamentals of behavior, which is clear in our modern society. Most do assume that everyone in a society will follow and respect such norms. However, some tend to deviate from the adequate norms and demonstrate deviant behavior. Nevertheless, we are inclined to ask ourselves, why do people decide to violate such important standards of living?
Moral relativists are unable to hide the inevitable consequences that would arise from a society based solely on the belief that morality is relative to each person. This is because there are simply moral truths that apply to everyone whether anyone believes them or not. These moral truths are undeniable and any attempt at denying them would result in undesirable effects. Moral relativism would imply that societies could function if members collectively believed that morality is relative to each person. This implication is false because there have been times in history where society has crumbled due to immoral actions, law and order is based on certain moral truths, and there wouldn’t be a substantial right and wrong in a morally relativistic
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.
First of all, Rachels outlined the argument of the CER theory so that it can be easily to understood and critiqued. The argument for Cultural Ethical Relativism
Many theories attempt to explain ethical standards and how certain cultures perceive these standards or practices. When explaining certain ethical standards Cultural Relativism is an failed illogical theory for many reasons. Cultural Relativism is a theory that attempts to explain an idea that no culture is superior to any other culture and that all people’s perspectives are biased by their own cultural background. Generally, it is the opinion that all cultures are of equal value and equality to each other, therefore, there is no one culture is inferior to any other.