Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Debate essays on animal rights
Ethical relativism esay
Media's role in stereotypes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Debate essays on animal rights
Ethics are 100% linked to a person’s individual culture. We don’t always think about it but how we feel about morals has a lot to do with the culture that we grow up in. From birth we are taught things and showed things which all add up into our views on the world. This makes us act the way we do and what makes us know what is morally acceptable. People who grow up in America grow up in completely different lives than those who live in China or any other part of the world. It doesn’t seem like it but these differences go much further than just lifestyle. A culture is much more than just the way someone acts. It includes how someone makes decisions and what their moral beliefs are. It also effects what we view as right and wrong. Cultural relativism …show more content…
The answer is no not really. When you go up to anyone who grew up in America and ask about a dog they are going to tell you how its “man’s best friend” and how they grow as a part of the family. According to a Purina pet survey 61 percent of woman talk to their dogs about issues. This outlines how important they are to people in America. Now let us think about Asian countries where they eat such animals. They kill dogs in the streets and even have fairs around the event. Even typing that sentence made my skin crawl and most Americans would feel the same. But why is that? If ethical relativism states that there is a valid difference between morals and that there is no “moral” rather “normal” (Ethics V5 N2 (Summer 1992) for …show more content…
I can respect that cultures have been doing things in their own accord for many upon many years. I can even accept that things are done differently than I am used to. Yet with that being said I personally believe that there should be a universal set of certain morals which directly goes against ethical relativism. I am a strong animal activist and this is a large reason why this theory doesn’t sit well with me. In Asian countries they overfish, eat animals that aren’t necessary, kill things in inhumane ways and that isn’t moral to me in the slightest. I used Asian countries as an example but I am aware that those things happen in other places as well but for the sake of limiting examples I will use that. Killing people isn’t moral to me either and list can go on from there. These things in my opinion should be viewed as wrong no matter what place you come from. I am willing to accept the fact that I may feel this way as a direct result of being brought up in the United States but regardless it is how I feel. Even within the United States things happen that I think shouldn’t be morally accepted. As my previous example in Texas you can shoot at someone if they are just on your lawn. That in my opinion is not necessary. If they don’t leave call the cops no need to potentially kill them. In Florida you can legally hunt Alligators to consume. I find this morally wrong because we have not a necessity to take them out of the wild to eat. It harms
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
... In addition to not identifying that some cultures have better reasons to hold their beliefs than others, ethical relativism fails to recognize that not every culture is a well-defined subset of people. Some individuals belong to multiple cultures, so then which culture holds the presidency over the others in determining one’s behavior as moral or immoral? Even though the theory of ethical relativism is rejected by most, it must be acknowledged that it raises important issues that should not be ignored. It reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs, and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture.
Cross-culturally there are many difference between moral values. The extremes of these moral differences include cannibalism or incest which were normal in some cultures, closer to home there are value differences between liberals and conservatives or between the South and the West, any two cultures will have different ideas of moral values. There are three potential sources to base moral values on, faith, emotion, or reason. Individuals all have different ideas about what is moral and they conflict with one another. If morals were based solely reason everyone would eventually reach the same moral ground. If they could be based only on reason, it would mean universal morals. However, based on how we determine our morals now, where
As Harry Gensler explains “Cultural Relativism”, he argues that good and bad is determined by society’s beliefs, that is, moral principles are settled by the cultures collective norms of what’s to be good and bad. This means that morality is a build group and therefore the moral codes you clench, are a reflection of the societies codes in which you live. Far, the morals held by your society are non-subjective facts, but preferably, varied from culture to culture. For example, if you believe hunting deer’s is wrong, what you really mean is that your society disapproves of hunting deer’s, or that the majority of the society disapproves with hunting deer’s. However if a different culture believes that hunting deer’s is right, both are factual
According to William Penn "Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.” The theory of relativism was first thought of by an ancient Greek sophist, Protagoras. He stated that “man is the measure of all things.” Which means man is the ultimate source of value. If we took a look at the world today, we would see that are many other cultures other than our own. With many cultures within the world, everyone is bound to believe that every culture is different. Even though their different, all of them are similar to each other. So if this is the case, do we as humans have the right to judge these cultures? Although cultures are not alike it is able to be question through culture relativism.
MORAL RELATIVISM Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles, meaning that what is morally right to you might not be morally right to me so it is more of “to each his or her own” and no one has the right to judge another. Moral relativism promotes tolerance because it encourages one to try to understand or accept other cultures and beliefs on their own terms, it believes that “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. Ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or actions and I believe some things are simply either right or wrong and there are no grey areas like torturing an infant, rape and murder. As much as we would want to believe that morality is relative to one’s culture and
The first moral of philosophy being Cultural relativism, says that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other.
Therefore, morality is subjective and there is no objective morality. There is no one set of moral rules that the whole world should follow. According to cultural relativism, all the cultures
In his essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is an unsatisfactory moral theory because it is based upon an invalid argument, if cultural relativism were true, this would have some troubling and implausible consequences, and there are some moral rules common to all societies. In this short paper, I will argue that moral objectivism is a more satisfactory moral theory than ethical relativism. Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes,
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
“Different cultures have different moral codes”, James Rachels discusses in his article Why Morality Is Not Relative? (Rachels, p. 160). A moral code is a set of rules that is considered to be the right behavior that may be accepted by a group of individuals within a society. Each culture tends to have their own individual standards and moral codes. Moral codes are guidelines laid out by a cultures ancestors. Standards are guidelines set forth by the individual themselves. Standards and morals don’t always have to be the same, but there are instances where they are. The moral codes claim what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Moral codes outline what behaviors individuals are supposed to make. These codes are basically laws, but specifically
... I think that all cultures should develop a “moral guideline” for themselves and reinforce it. However, the problem is because we don’t know what constitutes what is “moral or immoral” we can only be concerned with our society and make sure everyone adheres to our “law of the land”. Conclusion Based on findings and research, the world is made up of many different types of people with different morals and ethics.
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.
In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act. Finally, referring to James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I will solidify my argument further using his theory that
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.