The Pre-existing and Universal Code
Morality: A doctrine or system of moral conduct; particular moral
principles or rule of conduct.
To say that modern morality consists in accepting the standard of one's
age is to suggest that human morality changes with the passing of time. This
statement is just unacceptable. Morality is not something of a fad. It should
not go through trends like clothes or popular music, morality is the foundation
in which our society is embedded in, a foundation from which human values and
standards derive from. If we are to agree that these values and standards are
flexible within the boundaries of time, and that they contain within them no
ground rooted substructure in society, then there is no way in distinguishing
the difference between right and wrong. Morality is what identifies the
principles in which man exists, to seperate good from bad, and right from wrong,
and every society should strive to discover and achieve these principals.
Morality should not change over time even though cultures and social
stratifications do, what was morally right three thousand years ago is morally
right today and should be morally right three thousand years from now. 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.
“The fact that the Greeks or the inhabitants of New Guinea think
something right does not make it right, even for them. Nor does the fact that
we think the same things wrong make them wrong. They are in themselves either
right or wrong. What we have to do is discover what they are.”1
The clashes in cultures between difference of morality does not mean
that morals are relative, all that it...
... middle of paper ...
... suggest that man is incapable (or perhaps too indolent) in finding the
truth. If we are to accept the vast differences in morals and ethics in the
world as a beneficial standard to society we then accept that there is no right
and wrong, and thus there is no action that is best, and no action that can be
justified. We must realize certain values and beliefs that are ignorant to
those commands of God. Part of man's mission is discovering the preexisting and
universal code that God intends for us to ascertain. This was the very reason
Jesus was sent to us almost 2000 years ago, and it will be the same reason for
his return, to help instill those morals, values, and principles. And when he
returns the moral standard he will preach will not change because of the passing
of time. He will preach the same code he did originally. A preexisting,
universal moral code that will serve as a foundation for man to build upon, a
foundation where all men and women, while still being able to maintain there
culture and identity, will be able to live by the same principles, and morals as
everyone else, a foundation where everyone knows what is right, what is wrong,
and what is best.
First and foremost, the Greatest Happiness Principle focuses on two main ideas: one’s actions and their resulting utility. An individual is considered moral correct if their actions promote universal utility. However, the principle doesn’t simply require individuals to make any choice that promotes utility. A person is considered “morally correct” when and only when their decision promotes the most pleasure and minimizes the most pain.
part of the moral code of our society; and the task of moral philosophy consists in bringing
What is right and wrong? This question that has been asked throughout history all over the world that perplexes society even today. Many philosophers have attempted to answer this question, but it is hard to make out what the right answer would be or even if it can be answered. Who would be able to tell? That’s why we as individuals must make up our own minds on what is right or wrong. We can only hope to find our own moral path. Though it is up to us we can take a look at philosophers of the past to be a guiding hand at times.
Determining what is good and what is bad is almost impossible to do. Each individual person & culture both have a different opinion on that. Realistically, there is no one person who can determine if morals are in fact correct or wrong. This is the biggest and most argued flaw with the idea of cultural relativism. Some important facts about cultural relativism is that the idea that a person’s culture shapes their morals and beliefs has been studied for over a century. Bernard Williams is one of the most renowned researches into the topic of cultural relativity. One of the biggest examples of cultural relativism is the treatment of women in Middle Eastern countries, compared to the treatment of women in Western Countries. Another great example of this theory is that children in America are raised to believe that dogs are pets, while in other countries, such as China, dogs are considered a source of food. This theory is most debated through the religious world because religious sects believe that their set of morals is the only correct ones. culturally traditional things begin to shift and change in order to appease the world view of said culture. When you visit other country, keep in mind that there are varied cultures and tradition. Some of the traits or behavior that you are accustomed or familiar
Nothing in the world is completely wrong or, for that matter, completely right. While it may seem that in any given situation, there are only two outcomes, a right solution or a wrong solution, that doesn’t always mean the right one is obvious or even “right” at all. Instead, right and wrong are not absolutes that are applicable to every situation. In other words, not every wrong is equal. It is in fact possible for one thing to be more wrong than another. Isaac Asimov’s “The Relativity of Wrong” offers an insight to what makes something more wrong than something else. He explains in his essay that a common misconception exists in the belief that if something isn’t completely right, then it is wrong. Asimov debunks this belief by explaining
Lets start by understanding that cultures are a melting pot of people’s beliefs, language, behaviors, values, material objects, and norms. Norms are written and non-written “expectations of behavior” that govern a certain location, place, or culture (26). These norms also vary from culture to culture meaning what is a norm in the U.S may not be a norm in India. For example, a norm in America would be tipping a waiter after a meal. Another would be acknowledging someone as you walk past him or her, typically done at work or in a public place. In all, norms are folkways, mores, taboos, and written laws that are an established standard of one’s behavior.
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
As a cultural relativist, one would believe that morality is culturally bound. This is a subjective idea that believes “different societies have different moral codes” (Rachels,
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.
presents a clearer idea about what is held to be right or wrong; so, a
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
“Different cultures have different moral codes”, James Rachels discusses in his article Why Morality Is Not Relative? (Rachels, p. 160). A moral code is a set of rules that is considered to be the right behavior that may be accepted by a group of individuals within a society. Each culture tends to have their own individual standards and moral codes. Moral codes are guidelines laid out by a cultures ancestors. Standards are guidelines set forth by the individual themselves. Standards and morals don’t always have to be the same, but there are instances where they are. The moral codes claim what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Moral codes outline what behaviors individuals are supposed to make. These codes are basically laws, but specifically
a set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the different
Our world is constantly changing and it requires a society that is well versed in understanding the problems deriving from culture differences and tolerance of one another’s beliefs and perceptions. We are dealing with systemic problems in education, economic, government, religion and culture differences.