Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on ethical relativism
Essays on ethical relativism
Essays on ethical relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Argument from moral variability, as we discuss in our philosophy class, it is an argument to support Ethical Relativism, this argument claims that since different people have different moral standards, so there is no universal moral standard. As Stace claimed in his essay “ Ethical Relativism: A Critique”, “For the absolutist there is a single universal moral standard. For the relativist there is no such standard. There are only local, ephemeral, and variable standards.”(Stace, para 7). What Stace indicated in his argument is: people form different moral standards based on their backgrounds, circumstances, and ages, one thing treated right for this group may be treated wrong for the other group. From a personal perspective, I don’t agree with …show more content…
So we have laws to obey, have regulations to follow. As all the schools tell their students that cheating is seriously wrong, if students cheat in their exams, they will be punished severely, even being expelled, so all the students have to study hard in order to get good grades instead of cheating others’ answers or using their smart phones to search for the answers. This is one of the moral facts, and if it isn’t, nobody needs to read their textbooks and do their assignment, everyone can cheat in the exams, and the school has no reason to punish these people, because their own moral standard is “cheating is right, it is one tool to help me get good grades.”, and no one can judge their behavior to be false, since there is no a certain standard. As a matter of fact, many of our government’s laws are connected with moral standards, such as speed limit, no alcohol while driving, fraud and murder. These laws are based on the moral standards that harm other lives is wrong. If there is no speed limit, people can drive as quickly as they want on the highway, the city would be ruined with car accident. If there is no limit of pollution, our earth would be ruined by noxious
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
The thing that confuses me are the reasons why people cheat. I know that in college life, it is clear that grades are important. Since grades are so important, people want to do better and want to succeed in their classes that they are taking. By cheating, it makes it easier for them to get a better grade. I agree that it is not an honest thing to do, but it is clear that they are doing it for a reason, to benefit themselves. Also, people want to help their friends succeed so that is another part of it. I think if schools wanted to get rid of cheating, they should not focus on the grades as much. Grading people is important, but is it that important if everyone cheats? I also see how people want to be viewed as honest. I do not think people want to cheat because they think they will be viewed as immoral. Also, they could be punished which would hurt them as well. If everyone cheats in schools, why not just allow it? That is the way that the world is running currently and everyone is cheating their way through
Gilbert Harman lays out his moral relativism theory with “inner judgments”, the statements concerned with “ought”, in Moral Relativism Defended. However, he assumes an important premise of his theory to be true, which is the reason that I will prove the missing premise – that moral relativism is true – in this paper. Moreover, his form of moral relativism with his “four-place predicate ‘Ought(A,D,C,M),’ which relates an agent A, a type of action D, considerations C, and motivating attitudes M,” has brought about both meta-ethical and practical concerns. He argues that these inner judgments are only possible if agent A acknowledges considerations of the circumstance C, invokes motivating attitudes M, and supports the action D with C and M. In
Moral relativism has two conceptualized frameworks that describe statements. These are Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism. Cognitivism in a nutshell is merely the opposite of non-cognitivism. Relatively, it is the certainty that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are apt for truth and falsity. Moral judgments generally dwell in this arena due to the element that people incline to make moral judgments a large part in their decision-making and anything which is non-existent in moral values tends to be discarded. The spectrum that Cognitivism belongs to is so broad that it encompasses the milieus of moral realism, moral subjectivism and error theory. Hillary Putnam in his book, Ethics without ontology states that ethical (including mathematical) sentences can be factual and unprejudiced
“Abortion or induced abortion, by definition is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy via surgical or medical means” (Vaughn, 2013, p. 163). For many years debating the legality and morality of abortion has caused uproars both publically and privately among politicians, religious leaders and the general public. This paper is intended to bring insight to the subject from two ethical theories, Subjective Relativism and Virtue Ethics. After reviewing the subsequent material you will realize abortion in cases of rape is absolutely morally acceptable.
However, this may stem from a lack of enforcement of the rules. Even at the most prestigious schools, such as Harvard University, students are not upholding the rules implemented: “The possibility that 125 Harvard students ‘improperly collaborated’ on an exam in the spring has galvanized … discussion about … honor codes” (Source: C). In this case, people may argue that the only party at fault consists of the students. However, the faculty may be partially guilty as well, as their lack of care towards the rules has created a situation that jeopardizes the school’s integrity. Revision may then seem like the least of the school’s priorities, as they must show they seriously consider educational integrity. Likewise, at the University of Virginia, “157 students have been investigated by their peers in the largest cheating scandal in memory” (Source: D). Again, the school and all those who work there hold at least part of the fault for this ignorance because, theoretically, they should preserve and enforce the rules provided. The fact that the scandal exists means that they were not doing their jobs to their fullest. Although revision may seem simpler to carry out, the school’s staff must show an attempt at intervention within the student lives to keep them on a path towards
The Government cannot legislate morals, even though laws are based on them. “All laws bear some relation, however distant, to a moral evaluation of good and bad. We cannot escape making moral distinctions” (Esolen). In the instance of prohibition there were two different views of morality. Those who thought drinking led to sinful behavior, and those who thought alcohol wasn’t a bad thing. In the case of prohibition, people wanted there booze and they found a way to get it. They thought that drinking was okay. This shows that everybody has a different moral compass. “One man’s theft is another man’s redistribution of income. One man’s defense of family honor is another man’s murder” (Esolen). The legislation of morals by the government has proved to fail more than once. Joe Messerli says that the governments’ legislation on marijuana is based upon assumed morals and that in infringes upon citizens basic rights. (Messerli). This ties to prohibition because People felt very strongly about something
Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad", but who dictates the morals of society?. The government actually takes a big chunk of credit for giving society its current morals. The role of the government in morals of society should be to dictate them in “hope” of a society in constant improvement and try to eliminate possibility of chaos. Not all morals are dictated by the government because we are born with a human nature, but the government should enforce on this already planted morals and further expand them. In other words, the government laws are just an attempt to back up what is (or should be) already implanted on our brains.
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
That is not always the case, if the students’ belief is set to always do the right thing it will be done without any hesitation. “Despite the detailed testimony of the student who reported the infraction, the accused student walked free. The student reporting the infraction was socially stigmatized but also didn’t regret taking action.”(Gabor, 1). This also proves that if honor codes are added it can work effectively. Many students want to do the right thing, but sometimes need a little help in the right direction. If cheating is not reported the integrity of the honor code gets damaged severely. If people cheat and they do not report the cheating, the cheater will start to believe that it is okay to cheat and it will become a habit that is not good to have as a
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
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 the laws or morals of the society they belong too because under this theory no one has the right to be “right” over another. Different societies have different moral beliefs. To say one is right over another is hard, but as a global society we have come to a general understanding of what can be tolerated, and justified morally. When viewing different societies, it is difficult not to pass judgment on ethical views that are not shared and that is one of the key dilemmas with moral relativism.
There is an epidemic of cheating in American universities. Students are finding easier and more efficient ways to cheat. Morals and morality are changing. Students, members of the younger generation, and teachers, members of the older generation, differ on what is cheating. Morality even differs amongst students. Some students still adhere to the traditional sense of morality, and find what other students do an abhorration of morality. This essay is a mostly a pathos and ethos argument that attempts to appeal to the reader’s sense of right and wrong by using so-called “authorities.”
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...