Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social norms within cultures
Moral relativism problems
Moral relativism problems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social norms within cultures
Moral Relativism When faced with a choice of right or wrong, what matters do you consider to aid your decision? One commonly considers what their family or peers would do if they were in the same circumstance. This is because these individuals are apart of their culture and tend to share the same beliefs as them. Therefore, you are basing your actions on what would be commonly done by the individuals that make up your cultures. This is how someone who considers themselves a moral relativist would view the situation. Moral Relativists believe “there are no moral rules that apply to all cultures or all people in one culture and that no count or person should impose their moral rules on any other cultures or person”. (Peach, 9) When making a …show more content…
Paul doesn’t generally like Vinnie, he describes him as “big and mean”. In addition, Paul believes Vinnie doesn’t try in school because he's an athlete. Because of Paul’s feelings towards Vinnie it appears he does not want to help Vinnie with his test. Although,Paul is a moral relativist, which means he believes what’s right and wrong depends on the moral code of his culture. A moral code is a collection of moral norms that are widely excepted by individuals of a culture. Although according to Mark Timmons “There is much more to a moral code than simply accepting a bunch of norms. In addition, having a moral code involves being disposed to act in certain ways and feel a certain range of emotions. (43) Without Paul’s help Vinnie would surely end up on academic probation. Without Vinnie the hockey team had no chance of winning in the championship game. Everyone followed the hockey team and winning was extremely important to their culture. If Paul wants do what is right according to his moral beliefs than he must help Vinnie pass the test. It’s simple, “moral relativism states what is right for the culture is based on the basic moral norms of the culture.” (44) Doing what it takes to win at sports is a moral norm in his culture. Therefore, helping Vinnie on his test is obligatory because according to the basic moral norms of his culture, helping Vinnie is required to
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
Throughout this paper I will examine three different ethical views and interpret the ways in which one would respond to the scenario at hand. The initial ethical view is composed of cultural relativism. Another view is Kantian ethics. The final view involves utilitarianism. When presenting these views, I will describe each ethical view, and also I will speak abouts how a person who abides by the given ethical view would respond to the situation.
moral decisions, we will be analyzing why this scenario poses a dilemma, possible actions that
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
"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
Many seem to have falling prey to the seduction of ethical relativism, because it plays in to their ethnocentric egoistic moral belief. Individuals such as Pojman are able to critically evaluate this moral principle and not fall victim like his or hers lay counter parts. We will attempt to analyze the theory of ethical relativism, by check the validity of this ethical theory, and evaluate its ethical concepts. With these procedures we will find if it is competent as an ethical principle to adhere by. Then evaluate Louis Pojman critique on ethical relativism and analyze does he successfully refute relativism position. We will also analyze objectivism; the ethical theory which Pojman erects in the place of ethical relativism.
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
Your moral compass forms an ethical norm, and this is very much an impulsive decision, not one
Each culture has a different solution for a moral issue and there is an often conflict between cultures which leads to intolerance. Also, if the individuals deliberating are a part of two cultures, then an ultimate decision to decide on whether or not to put elderly loved ones in nursing homes will come about with some conflict and differences with the culture they belong to. For example, a high-income Hispanic has the income in order to finance the costs of the nursing home, but their Hispanic culture tells them that it is not right to abandon their family just because they are now older. In this case, one would have to rely on a different method in order to reach a moral decision without the consideration of their cultures values and views involved. Cultural relativism tends to be flawed when more than one culture is involved in deliberation, in order to successfully make a correct moral decision, we will compare cultural relativism's various solutions based on its cultures against utilitarianism's principle of
More often than not, a person will encounter themselves in a difficult and problematic situation. Life is not a walk in the park when it comes to making decisions. Making choices may not be feasible when under pressure and stress. Ideally, this applies to those choices that are not black and white. In relation, this is where a person's morality comes into play which reveals their
In the attempt to explain morality, two prominent theories exist- moral relativism and moral objectivism. Morality in a sense is difficult to explain, both theories attempt to shed a bit of light in way to break down its complexity. Moral Relativism argues in the view that morality exists only due to the fact that it is relative, or in respect to, cultural or individual beliefs. In a sense, it is up to the people to determine what is right and wrong. On the other hand, moral objectivism views that morality is not parallel, or relative, to one 's beliefs. That it is independent and not subjective to one 's interpretations, thus it is objective and universal moral facts exist. Louis. P. Pojman, an American philosopher and professor,
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
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...
Morality can best be defined as, “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” “In philosophy we have a problem knowing the origin of right and wrong, there are various theories and ideas but we do not seem to have a definite answer to this question.” (Jamee Ford). When trying to decipher whether morality is objective or subjective, the logical answer would be that morality is objective. Objective morality is structured, and can be understood; therefore, it is rational. On the other hand, subjective morality is evoked from one’s personal feelings and emotions, and belongs to the contemplating subject; rather than the object of thought. Subjective morality is irrational, because not everyone in society