What Cultural Relativism Is Cultural relativism is a moral theory. Moral theories are designed to help us figure out what actions are right and wrong. In the theory of cultural relativism, the theory holds that there is no universal morality that is recognized amongst all cultures. In an article on this theory, James Rachel’s states several characteristics of cultural relativism, each distinguished as either supporting, or neglecting the theory itself: 1. Different societies have different moral codes; 2.
In particular it is logic that provides the rational and critical approach in ethics. So logic help us to understand the nature of moral dilemmas. It has been suggested that all moral dilemmas result from some kind of inconsistency in the moral rules. So our being faced with unsolvable moral situation merely reflected an implicit inconsistency in our existing moral code and that we forced... ... middle of paper ... ...sibus perplexis// Th. Hobbes.
One example is known as Ethical Relativism. Ethical Relativism has been developed on the basis that there is no common set of values that can apply to everyone, as there are an infinite number of cultures that exist and clash with each other. Morality is extremely relative, so the best way to solve a moral dilemma is by analysing the conditions of the specific culture to which it applies. In this paper, I will be discussing and analysing Ethical Relativism and the ways it can be applied to moral issues. To truly understand the meaning of the the term Ethical Relativism, one must first break down the word itself.
Recognizing the great extent of moral disagreements, some contemporary philosophers start to wonder whether morality is absolute in its nature. They propose a theory known as Moral Relativism, which holds that “moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other” (Dreier, p.1); no absolute moral fact exists independently of those standards. The opposite theory of Moral Relativism is Moral Absolutism---the idea that moral proposition is determined by absolute, unvarying moral facts. In this paper, I will argue that Moral Relativism is not a suitable theory in explaining the nature of morality. I will start by introducing two famous arguments in favor of Moral Relativism and explain why they are flawed arguments.
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. Implicit in the basic formulations for both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any another. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified.
Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning. One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints. Actions are either classified as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good.
He illustrates his point by comparing QE to Aristotle. Pincoffs claims this is a radical departure from virtue ethics that centers around the question "how should we resolve the perplexities?" rather than "how shoul... ... middle of paper ... ...eing rule-responsible (essence of morality). Pincoffs claims that the essence of morality is confused with the idea that some moral rules (rule-responsibility) are socially essential. But to grant that rule-responsibility is socially essential does not grant that it is the essence of morality.
I would consider myself a Moral Objectivist. I would consider my self a objectivist for many reason, For example Moral Relativism defines that an all beliefs and customs and ethics are relative to an individuals within his or her own social context. First, Moral Objectivism implies that what is wrong or right does not necessarily depend on what an individual thinks is right or wrong( ). To many people they think that “ Different cultures have different moral codes”(). To many that’s the key understanding to morality, However in ethics some say it is in actuality a myth.
Both cases are morally difficult, how does it appear acceptable to sacrifice the life of one for others like in the trolley case but when pushing an individual to do so makes it unacceptable. Moral philosophers use such cases in an attempt to understand how people use utilitarian methods to make a moral decision that could cause lasting affects. Joshua Greene is the author of the article The Secret Joke of Kant’s Sou. He uses support to identify that consequentialism and deontology are “two different ways of moral thinking” (Greene). Greene clarifies that people’s moral intuitions and judgments are simply rationales for human decision-making.
In Ross's discussion of moral epistemology in What Makes Right Acts Right?, he makes a number of claims for moral objectivity and a set of prima facie duties. In Ross's view, these prima facie duties should govern how we behave in every sort of moral situation. Much of Ross's argument depends on this duties being innate and objective. This paper will criticize Ross's claims, specifically on the grounds of the existence and objectivity of these prima facie duties. I intend to show that Ross's comparisons about prima facie duties and mathematical axioms are baseless and false.