When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind. To this, Mill replies that the only way that a person can be confident that he is right is if there is complete liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs. Humans have the capacity to correct their mistakes, but only through experience and discussion. Human judgment is valuable only in so far as people remain open to criticism. Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs.
Believing in cultural relativism means you can also not judge other cultures of what they think is right or wrong. Vaughn and Rachels give examples and evidence to support moral objectivism and I believe it is the better moral theory. I stated that one might be against objectivism because every culture has their own morals, and some cultures do not believe every individual should have the power to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Some cultures believe in relativism, where only they can decide their morals and can also not judge other cultures of their morals. Every one is going to judge different cultures morals, no matter what.
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
I believe that if someone were to be an objectivist, they aren’t accepting of this concept of people being different and having different ethics and morals than they do, and that’s where there are many issues and arguments. They believe that everyone should believe in the same ethics and morals as they do and are not accepting to the idea of people having different ethics and morals as they do. They think it is completely unacceptable for someone to think differently than they do. That is not the right way to go about having different ethics and morals. People should be accepting to the diversity there is when it comes to morals and ethics because this creates the ability to discuss upon it and learn how and why people believe in the things they do.
Because no matter what you would believe, you would also have to believe that someone else was as equally correct as... ... middle of paper ... ... It leaves one with no answers, just because one lives in a different culture it makes it all right to kill because that is what others do. This is not a valid argument and doesn’t help in any way for people to describe why we are the way we are. Although that might not be the role of philosophy, I would contend that it plays an important part in understanding a theory of how it is we should live our life. Moreover it doesn’t leave us with any truths to the validity of their actions.
If you see what they do obviously they give negative feedback and that is not right. Create as many cultures as you want but they need to be doing the right thing. Heaven’s gate is simply based off from belief and they cause no harm. There is nothing wrong there for what they believe and is based on simply from choice if whether you should listen or not. Cultures have beliefs for their own ways of life, but so do people.
The meta-ethical theory of relativism claims that there is no universal moral standard that can be used to evaluate the practices and beliefs of other cultures. For the relativist, 'true' only means 'true for my culture', while at the same time, what someone in another culture deems as true, regardless of the contrast, can be equally so (Williams 1976: 34). This means that the criterion for what is deemed acceptable for a given society, is reflective of the views of the prevailing culture. I disagree with this meta-ethical view. At first glance, the theory of relativism might appear as one of respect and tolerance, however, after closer analysis it leads to sharp division between different societies (Midgley 1993: 175), which in an increasingly integrated and globalised world, cannot really hold.
Cultural relativists accept diversity and strive to study it while ethical relativists do not think that there is a universal right or wrong and see ethics as relative. Culture relativists may criticize ethical relativists because they are not able to be critical of what they believe is evil, as commented on in lecture. Ethical relativists believe that we should tolerate other cultures that may be perceived as inhuman and evil because these practices are relative. As said in lecture, to be a cultural relativist without being an ethical relativist would be by being aware and interested in learning about the various
For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception. Only having absolutes creates a theory that is extremely hard only to abide by, especially when deontological though permits you from making a choice when that choice would clearly be optimal... ... middle of paper ... ...individual beliefs, one can form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take. Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of people may contain different morals.
Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an... ... middle of paper ... ...mplication would be significant in that it would give rise to judgment of morality outside and independent of culture.