Can we assume an action is moral just because it is normal and accepted by the majority of people? According to moral relativism, the answer is yes! Relativism is the belief that says moral principles are valid, but are different by individuals (subjectivism) or by culture (conventionalism). Conventionalists like Ruth Benedict claim that cultures cannot judge one another, since they have different principles (Pojman, 514). On the other hand, Pojman argues that there are some serious issues with relativism. One example is tolerance with cultures that have different principles. Since there are no standards of principles according to relativism, being tolerant is not better than being intolerant, and here relativists fail to criticize intolerance. Moral relativism contradicts itself by saying there are no universal norms and cultures should not judge or criticize one another while appealing to the principle of tolerance as a universal one. …show more content…
In other words, any socially acceptable behavior that is viewed as normal is also good. All of the different moralities are equally valid. Using the argument of “normality”, every culture decides what action is right, to suit the majority. Then those people live with what they define as normal and the minority then become different and abnormal (Pojman, 518). Benedict emphasizes that moral and ethical relativism occurs as a response to differences in cultures naturally (Pojman, 518-519). Subjectivism is the extreme end of relativism. This belief makes mortality determined by individuals, not society or universe. Therefore, what you believe in is the only moral principles, and all principles are equally
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
"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
Relativist ethics could be seen as fair or unfair. They provide individuality which allows people such as Hitler to commit outrageous acts and be justified for them, which is unfair. It is not right to justify murder in any way or stop people from having their own morality because of cultural approval. An example of this would be female genital mutilation (FGM) which is seen as a positive action in some Asian countries because of cultural acceptance. But from Western society is seen as otherwise. Another example of this would be Abortion, which is strongly discouraged by the Islamic faith, and seen as normal act that doesn’t necessarily need justification for. Relativist ethics would allow it
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.
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
Ethics are not universal throughout the world due to the many different persons and cultures that have different moral beliefs and ethics. However, within an area where the culture is similar and the majority of the people in society believe in the same morals and beliefs, all of their ethics can be said to be relative. Rather than believing if an action is good or bad, morals from different cultures and settings are viewed as being either accepted or not accepted. As long as an action is viewed as being accepted then that is a moral of that culture. An example of a moral being accepted in a culture when other cultures do not accept it is killing. There are some cultures that believe in the concept of suicide and/or homicide, while other
While moral relativism may seem appealing due to the fact that if and individuals behavior feels right to them than it is right for them. When applying this position of morals to everyday situations it revealed to be a fairy tale in search of individualism. Unless everyone lives in a bubble where they have no interaction with anyone else moral relativism is just not pragmatic. Consider if you were mugged, during the altercation, you were beaten, injured and your personal belongings were stolen. After applying moral relativism to this situation, the conclusion is that the person who mugged you did absolutely nothing wrong. The person you feel may have violated you as an individual felt that their actions were right. Why would this person submit you to this behavior? This not a question that a moral relativist would ask because they have no right to influence or question another’s moral values. In addition t...
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.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position. It relieves individuals of the burden of serious critical reasoning about morality, and it
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
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...
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
Moral practices are different in many cultures. There are cultural practices that you would expect to be immoral all over the world, but it is not. For example, I do not understand how anyone would feel it is normal to eat love ones who have died. In some cultures, this is normal behavior. It is normal for others to burn the dead. In my culture, we bury the dead. Because I feel it is inhuman for someone to eat their loves after they have died does not give me the right to tell them they are wrong and I am right. This is the means behind ethical relativism. T...