More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of ethical decision making
Ethical objectivism vs ethical relativism
Ethical objectivism vs ethical relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of ethical decision making
The world is constantly changing. New governments are being formed, land boundaries are changing, and our way of life is being questioned. The common factor in these changes is people. The things that shape ethics in our environment can be viewed in two different ways. There is a belief that some supreme being created life, and a different belief that we exist because of evolution. These different theories deal with morality, more specifically, Ethical Relativism and Ethical Objectivism. A relativist does not have an absolute stance on a position; there is no right or wrong, and an objectivist claims that some moral rules are correct. I will discuss both theories and give my opinion on which theory I hold.
An ethical relativist will claim
…show more content…
This differs from the relativist point of view in that the objectivist believes there is a right answer. A person has one correct way to live their life independent of what someone else may think. There is a greater power driving our moral decisions of right and wrong. One horn of Euthyphro’s dilemma describes that something is morally good because God has willed it. Believing in a higher power would give the objectivist the moral truth he needs for guidance. The idea of a superior being that created everything and guided the way a person lives his life could be used to defend this ethical objective principle.
Exodus 20:17 says “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” This example shows how the ethical objectivist looks at a higher power for guidance in living a moral life. For the objectivist, there is no gray area. God determined that it is morally wrong to commit adultery. The relativist may choose to participate in extra marital affairs based on their culture or social beliefs. The relativist will make concessions to justify his actions or beliefs. The objectivist would simply say it is a
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.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
Even though there are several schools of Naturalistic ethic, they all have one major quality in common – recognition of Nature as the main guiding force of our lives. Naturalists try to understand Nature and how Nature and humanity are linked together. Adherents of Naturalism try to convince people to shift their attitude toward the need to follow the laws of nature as a principle of moral conduct. There are three major schools of Naturalism. The first school strives for “returning back to nature” in order to enjoy a simple life and find out the truth by communion with nature, which is considered to be the teacher for all people. The second school recognizes that the Nature has inner soul. For example, stoics believed that Nature possesses rational (comprehensible by human mind) and positive divine power and all events in people’s lives are predetermined by it. Thus, people should give in to their fates and react in a positive and rational way toward unforeseen circumstances because everything happens for a reason and for the best. The third school advocates evolutionary theory as the basis for ethical conduct. Followers of this theory argue that people should learn their behavior from the evolutionary model of natural world. Darwin’s law of survival of the fittest was applied to social context. The ethical conduct is considered to be right when people or government do not interfere to help weak “species” survive. As a result, the most developed, smart and enterprising people will prevail and as social evolution progresses, they will form a superior society.
Am I a relativist or an objectivist? 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 it. To be a relativist, that means I believe what is right or wrong is decided on what I think of the act committed. After thinking about that, I’ve decided that I am, for sure, a relativist. I understand that people believe in different things 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 am interested to learn about other people’s morals and being accepting of that also. 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, and that’s where there are many issues and arguments. They believe that everyone should believe in the same ethics or morals as they do and are not accepting to the idea of people having different ethics or morals as they do. There are many reasons why I am a relativist and where I think morals come.
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.
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
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
As a cultural relativist, one would believe that morality is culturally bound. This is a subjective idea that believes “different societies have different moral codes” (Rachels,
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.
Ethics are a set of principles that guide us in what is morally right and wrong when making judgements in situations. Making an ethical decision involves considering the needs of all parties involved in order to create a compromise that benefits as many of these interests as possible. An individual’s ethics are shaped by many influencing factors, such as religion. The perspective on ethics differs between religions, which can be seen when comparing Judaism and Buddhism. In the case of electric cars becoming mandatory by 2030, the Greens Political Party must consider competing interests surrounding the dilemma, which are economic, environmental and the effect on small business. In ethical decisions there are negative consequences
As a function, ethics is a philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct, and of the rules and principles it should govern. As a system, ethics are a social, religious, or civil code of behavior considered correct by a particular group, profession, or individual. As an instrument, ethics provide perspective regarding the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, or potential outcomes. Ethical decision-making can include many types, including deontological (duty), consequentialism (including utilitarianism), and virtue ethics. Additionally, subsets of relativism, objectivism, and pluralism seek to understand the impact of moral diversity on a human level. Although distinct differences separate these ethical systems, organizations
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.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
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.
Ethics is defined as a study that deals with what behavior is considered to be, good or bad. Ethics is about doing what is right for other people throughout society (Kraft). Ethical principles result from religions, philosophies, and cultural ideas. The world is changing and so is everything in it, judgments about what is ethically right and wrong are also changing. Ethical relativism is important within society, along with utilitarianism, deontology, virtue-based ethics, and ethical principles of healthcare.