Whatever the daimyo tells a samurai to do, he will do regardless of personal risk. By detaching himself from the thought of risk or of danger or death, and of the worry of morality, the samurai is able to remain more loyal to the daimyo. Complete loyalty is only possible through detachment from personal risk, morality, and thought. Zen Buddhism teaches of a concept called wu-nien, or “no-thought”. This of course is not a literal absence of thought, but it is rather a detachment from the thou... ... middle of paper ... ...tomo promotes throughout Hagakure are moral in nature, such as being courageous, loyal and honorable.
Any individual who attempts to formulate an objective set of values will always fail, because the prism through which they analyze the world will inevitably be marred by their own experiences and perspectives. Therefore, moral standards are actually cultural standards, and nothing more. Cultural Relativism posits that there are no universal ethical truths, only various cultural codes. Cultural relativism is a theory about the nature of morality. (489) One proposition of this theory states that, “it is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples.
Culture Relativism Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged. By no fathom of the imagination can one contend that his or her own self ideas are correct there are certain bias that come with all judgments on the correct way to live, but if culture relativism stood true than it must be able to give some sort of universal truth. To produce a theory that says in its entirety the correct way to live depends on the culture you were brought up in and that is a truth contradicts itself. Culture relativists contend that this is a truth all people are different and we all have different moral codes. I think for the most we do, but to what does this argument mean?
In existential thought ethics displace morals because ethics relate to the existentialist’s primary concern: the individual. Finding the underlying values common to existentialists allows an understanding of the basic substructure of existential philosophy. There is a se... ... middle of paper ... ...is/her actions, including his/her effect on others. The existentialist must confront how their personal decision making is reflected in world issues, such as hunger, pollution, and ethnic cleansing. As to Mary Warnock’s "mood": ha!
Death is not to be feared by the samurai, it is to be embraced. The relationship between the samurai and his master is of the utmost importance, and only through detachment can the samurai fully and properly serve his master. These are two core, fundamental philosophies of bushido, and both can are reminiscent of similar ideologies in Buddhism, and Confucianism. In Hagakure, a great emphasis is placed on the samurai's approach towards death. The relationship between death and the samurai can not be understated.
Midgley responds by giving an example regarding Japanese samurais. A samurai’s sword had to be tried out for the sword to work properly, and for it to work appropriately it must be able to cut through someone in a single blow, if not than it would bring shame to the samurai’s honor, upset his ancestors and even let down the emperor. Tests were needed to make sure that the sword worked properly, and all civilians were used to test the sword, and as long as
It is widely accepted that different cultures, whether that be as simply as regional or global, have different ways of viewing life. While one culture may find one thing to be socially acceptable another may find the same to be completely taboo. To begin this argument I would like to cite the works of Richmond Campbell in “Moral Epistemology”(Campbell 2003.) In this he states that “Moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social group in which moral sensibility is formed with the result that no moral truths are known to hold universally.” While it may be fair to judge someone of your own culture off of your moral intuition, the statement above shows that you cannot equally transfer this moral judgment to another culture. Campbell uses the argument of a woman wearing a veil over her face.
This belief is then incorporated into society and becomes the norm. Anything not considered to be moral is tossed aside and considered to be abnormal. This is what the theory of cultural relativism is based on. It is an explanation of why different societies have different ideas concerning morals. Cultural relativism is a belief where there are no absolute moral views or beliefs can be apply to all cultures, which makes “right” and “wrong” different in every society; what is considered “right” in one society may be considered “wrong” in another.
Each of us must experience the world from a different light and a different bias. Therefore, how can our descriptions be pure? It may not be possible to faithfully depict the ineffable nor comprehend it truly. Like language, and possibly with the development of language, our conceptions have also narrowed to exclude what is ultimately real. There is the conventional reality that is accepted within a group of people but it is flawed.
Is it all relative? Moral relativism is a widespread theory that can be used to explain the differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Ruth Benedict describes relative morality as a concept based specifically on the ethics of a culture and how they are related to those of other cultures. He argues that many cultures are so contrasting when it comes to specific areas of culture and lifestyle that they cannot be unified under one universal moral code that governs all of humanity. Conversely however, James Rachels, author of Elements of Moral Philosophy, does not subscribe to the theory of moral relativism.