Elise Coby
Ethics
Mr. Smith
October 3, 2017 The minimum conception of morality is one’s ability to reason from an unbiased and rational standpoint. Ethical theories that reject the minimum conception of morality generally run into predicaments regarding their arguments. The conception can be used as a “center” that theories can make a point out of. It has been criticized under James Rachel’s point, which states that there are many rival theories, which opposes different points of views as to what it actually means to live “morally”. The minimum conception of morality could allow people to see disagreements in a larger perspective, which could ultimately help resolve tension in a moral aspect. Cultural relativism is the view that ethics from the perspective of different cultures are all “equal” and that one system isn’t necessarily better than the other. A person’s culture strongly influences point of view and thought. According to cultural relativism, there is no universal truth, only diverse cultural codes. Since there is no universal standard of what morality is, nobody has a right to judge other cultures. An example of cultural relativism is the point of view on human contact. In America, hugging another is a sign of being friendly or showing affection meanwhile, hugging or even touching another individual on the arm in places like Korea
…show more content…
That would become very ineffective because of the fact that emotions of individuals are very different from each other. Just because a person may convey a sad or emotional statement, it still doesn’t mean they are correct. Emotivism can also create a bias based on how one personally feels about something and can create a larger argument. If an individual feels strongly about something emotionally charged, they may not be able to see the “bigger picture” or entire perspective of something and be able to see both
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
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
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Cultural relativism is a theory, which entails what a culture, believes is what is correct for that particular culture, each culture has different views on moral issues. For example, abortion is permissible by American culture and is tolerated by the majority of the culture. While, Catholic culture is against abortion, and is not tolerated by those who belong to the culture. Cultural relativism is a theory a lot of individuals obey when it comes to making moral decisions. What their culture believes is instilled over generations, and frequently has an enormous influence since their families with those cultural beliefs have raised them. With these beliefs, certain cultures have different answers for different moral dilemmas and at times, it is difficult to decide on a specific moral issue because the individual may belong to multiple
Many of the films that we watched in class portrayed examples of cultural relativism. In the film “Amish on Break”, Becky and Andrew decide to join the U.K. teenagers in the ocean when they take them to the beach. Leah is hesitant to go in the moving water, but Becky and Andrew go in and get the full experience of what it is like to play in the ocean and enjoy the beach, as most teenagers in the U.K. do. This is an example of cultural relativism because the Amish teenagers are engaging in an activity they have never experienced so they can learn what teenagers in the U.K. like to do in their leisure time. They want to learn about this culture and way of life that is truly foreign to them by experiencing it first-hand and engaging in the same activities they do. Another film that exemplifies cultural relativism is the “Emerald Forest.” The father, Bill, finally finds his son Tommy and immerses into the culture of his son’s tribe to better understand him after reuniting with him all these years. In a specific scene, Bill shows that he can be part of the tribe by rubbing the dust of the invisible stones below his eyes and having the pipe blown into his nose to foresee his spirit animal. Although it seems it is a painful experience, Bill goes through with it because he truly wants to see the world through his son’s eyes. Another film that we watched was “Dances with Wolves”, in which Lieutenant Dunbar exemplifies cultural relativism by fully immersing himself into the Sioux
“Decreased moral standards and ethics related to ignorance to accepted social behavior standards”. Morality is defined as an understanding and distinguishing right and wrong and behaving according to socially accepted standards (The Definition of Morality, 2002). People can be inconsiderate and conflictful. From the assessment, it was evident that some people have lack of respect to other’s personal properties and even their own. Abandoned houses and trash on properties suggest social and moral degradations. Some of the contributing factors might be poverty, unemployment, and mental illnesses. Lack of morality might be a problem that affects other states and even countries. However, in some areas of Spokane, it is evident that people
...onsideration before settling with one definition of morality. Because so many points, ideas, and fair arguments exist about moral theory, one cannot really come to one clear, concise definition of morality.
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
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,
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
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.