Morality, it seems, can only be obtained through subjective reasoning. One’s ability to perceive morality is derived from either a tacit, oral, or written agreement that is developed by one’s community or ethnos for members of that community or ethnos to abide by. The values of an ethnos may change over a period of time, but the fundamental aspect of the idea being specific to those of the ethnos and not being ubiquitous remains. These sentences express what are the basic tenants of moral relativism. I was curious to discover how moral relativism addresses the issue of racial inequality and policies during the 20th century. Furthermore, I wanted to discover if a moral relativists view would provide justification for 20th century racial inequality and policies. German (Nazis), American (Jim Crow), and South African (Apartheid) racial policies of the 20th century were all aimed in providing legality to subordination and legalizing inferiority. Although it may seem impossible to ignore the atrocities that occurred as a result of these policies, for the purpose of this essay, I must focus on if there was any justification of these ideas. An objection to moral relativism often highlights the lack of prudence to obvious moral wrongs, which I will discuss later in this essay. Additionally, critics of moral relativism point to a universal morality that supersedes ethnos or group morality. However, more objections will be discussed later in this essay. Perceived notions of ‘race’ allowed from certain ethnic groups to promote racial inequality as a ubiquitous fact amongst their respective ethnos (Germans, Americans, South Africans). Moreover, their views are specific to their individual ethnos and thus, not subject to a broad acceptance or ...
... middle of paper ...
.... Web. Oct. 2013. .
Noguchi, Mai. "Apartheid." Postcolonial Studies Emory. Emory University, Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.
Noguchi, Mai. "Apartheid." Postcolonial Studies Emory. Emory University, Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. .
Pilgrim, Daniel. "What Was Jim Crow?" What Was Jim Crow. Ferris University, 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.
USHMM. "The Nuremberg Race Laws." The Nuremberg Race Laws. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. .
Westacott, Emrys. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Moral Relativism []. Alfred University, State University of New York, 30 May 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. .
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.
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
What Was Jim Crow?. (n.d.). What was Jim Crow. Retrieved April 11, 2014, from http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm
That morality is not relative, Rachel argues, “ Claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish”. She argues that we do not need morality because of culture differences and values based on where we are. Also talks about what can be learned from relativism and states that because of it morality is not needed and know what to do based on their moral codes.
(1) Schafer, Karl. "Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 602-20. Web.
The purpose of this essay is to elaborate on John Ludwig Mackie’s argument that all moral judgments are false considering they presuppose moral objectivity which is itself inaccurate. To do so, I shall explain Mackie’s reasoning as to why the belief that moral values are objective was founded, and clarify Mackie’s arguments for why such an idea is misleading. Furthermore, I shall demonstrate how John McDowell’s color analogy can successfully prove Mackie wrong. The argument of this essay will establish that Mackie is immune to the idea of moral objectivity for he finds it queer and unsupportive of the relativity shown throughout the world. However, Mackie fails to acknowledge that properties that are dependent on
Massey, Douglas A. and Nancy A. Denton. American Apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
"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
Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgement can only goes as far a one person’s standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. What I hope to prove in my thesis statement are inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Fieser, J. (2009, 5 10). Ethics. Retrieved 3 26, 2011, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
Cultural relativism is the idea that moral and ethical systems varying from culture to culture, are all equally credible and no one system is morally greater than any other. Cultural relativism is based on the concept that there is no “ultimate” standard of good and evil, so the judgement of what is seen as moral, or immoral, is simply a product of one’s society and/or culture. The general consensus of this view is that there is no ethical position that may be considered “right” or “wrong” in terms of society and culture (Cultural Relativism). In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is not an adequate view of morality by providing evidence of its most common logical problems and faulty reasoning.