In my opinion, the beliefs of different societies, or extra terrestrial beings, cannot be said to be “correct” or “incorrect” because this would imply that an objective ethical truth exists. In reality, only the various cultural moral codes are in existence, and therefore all moral standards are actually cultural standards. A search for a universal ethical truth would be a fruitless never-ending roundabout of arguments between different people and different cultures.
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.
According to his theory, his morality is right. If we do not have a reference point for good, then it means we can’t compare and contrast our moral facts. An individual person’s reference point cannot be used as a source objective moral fact, because it is not going to work for the greater number of people. In this case, individual relativism claims about the source of objective moral fact it 's not true. Others like a cultural relativist claim society determines moral facts.
Similarly in the case of adopting subjectivism, as long as the person committing the action thought this action was morally permissible then that statement could not be made. If we adopted ethical nihilism, statements like this would not be able to have any truth value. Since ethical nihilism states that there are no correct answers whatsoever we could not state that something was wrong and give it a truth factor. In order to do this there must be some correct alternative but nihilism states there is no such
Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
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.
Only with universal principles can we as collective society discover what is right, what is wrong, and what is best, therefore there exists not modern morality but simply morality. An empirical philosopher, W.T. Stace, argues that if we believe all morals are culturally relative, it is impossible for us to judge what is best. Although admitting he does not know what is best, he concludes that it is the responsibility of man to discover what is. He does not dispute that moral customs and moral ideas differ from country to country and from age to age, but that the fact that one culture thinks something is right does not necessarily make it right just as much as what we believe is wrong in our culture does not necessarily mean it is wrong.
Related to this idea is moral skepticism, which holds that we can’t know any moral truths, and moral subjectivism, which holds that moral views are merely inner states in a person and that they can’t be compared to the inner states of another person. However believing in the above solves no problems, if nobody is right and nobody is wrong. The second way is to believe that there is no universal truth, that each culture has its own set of rules that are valid and apply to that culture, they don’t interfere with our rules and we don’t interfere with theirs, this is called ethical relativism. This belief is viewed as an attitude of tolerance. This belief solves conflicts in the idea that whatever the majority deems to be the moral rule is the rule to follow.
P2: Well informed, open minded people intractably disagree about all ethical claims C: Therefore there are no objective moral truths. This is the fundamental claim for moral relativism. Cultural relativism is really an application of this statement as it acknowledges that individuals disagree about ethical claims, but aims to impose a ‘golden rule’ to determine whether an act is morally wrong or right. To put the cultural relativism theory into words: an act is morally right if and only if it is permitted by the moral code of the society to which the agent belongs. The studies of cultural relativism and moral relativism are often confused and it is important to know how to differentiate between the two.
The cultural differences argument goes like this; 'Different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no one correct set of moral claims, only those that conform to the major set of beliefs within the given culture'. Firstly I am going to look at James Rachel's (in 'The Elements of Moral Philosophy', Ch.2) analysis of this argument, and secondly I would lie to give my assessment of the argument. Rachel's argues that this argument is not logical, as the conclusion does not follow from the factual premise. The premise makes an assertion about differences in moral beliefs. The conclusion makes an assertion about the nature of moral facts or truths.