Three Theories Of Moral Realism

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be applied to all peoples at all times. Culture and personal morals cause a person to make certain moral decisions.

The theory’s problems start arising when you start to think “why do our actions become moral if society or our culture approves of them?” There is also nothing in the theory of Cultural Relativism that explains why normal behavior in a society is considered the moral behavior instead of the other way around. Thus, morality is decided on a random basis there is nothing that says what makes normal behavior moral. The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism both share this weakness that discredits

The Adequacy of the Moral Argument for Explaining the Existence of God The moral argument like many arguments for the existence of God comes in many different forms. All of these set out to prove God’s existence from the evidence of morality in the world. Morality is about understanding the difference between the right and wrong action in a situation, the moral person has this understanding and then acts appropriately. The moral arguments first problem or flaw is that it assumes and works on the principle that the majority of people have some experience of morality. Newman presumes God’s existence not from moral law but from the fact of conscience ‘we fell responsibility…the voice of conscience, this implies that there is one to whom we are responsible’.

Only few people are universally accepted as this ideal conception of morality, such figures like Gandhi or Jesus. Kant believes that we cannot derive this idea of morality simply from examples of those around us but we can only decide morality from a specific principle. This notion of morality is rooted from an idea that is not used by most individuals. He has little faith in human morality because he sees them as easily corruptible; the Kantian moral method can only be true on the basis that human nature often struggles with desires and passions that don’t always fit in line with morality. Kant argues that human reasoning is limited in its ability to provide an example of true morality.

The Divine Command Theory and Relativism make strong claims on the source of morality. Robert C. Mortimer describes in Morality Is Based on God’s Commands that morality itself is derived from the act of God deeming things as either right or wrong. The following claim “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” is believable when following Divine Command Theory as compared to other theistic views. I shall display two theist claims which respectively accept and reject the previous statement, as well as arguing the the plausibility of each claim. First, Divine Command Theory derives morality from the word of God.

By this approach morality is determined by the commands of God and free from objectivity. However, the theory cannot apply to atheist and possess some skeptical results. In “the Euthypro Problem,” Socrates asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Due Socrates’ question, God’s commands conclude to be arbitrary and His goodness as meaningless. The Euthypro problem also causes believers of this theological conception to choose between the goodness of God and a standard independent of God. To avoid this dilemma, Rachels suggests the Theory of Natural Law in the next section.

Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.

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.

Some people believe that morals are not universal and rather that the moral action depends on societal or individual opinions. It is obvious that people and societies have different beliefs on what is right and what is wrong, but does that change what is moral? Therefore, the question is: Are there any moral truths that remain constant regardless of opinions? Ethical Objectivism is based on the belief that there are moral truths of the universe that

However, with the second choice, the commands of God are actually worthless. In response, the only conclusions are that the commands of God are actually meaningless or there is a standard of morality that exists separately from God. This would offend many religions and the religious perspectives of the people in them. However, in this case, they would have to accept a standard of morality that was separate from God’s will. We have examined the arguments for and against the Divine Command Theory.