More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyze the theory of ethical relativism
What is ethical objectivism and relativism
What is ethical objectivism and relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The world is a mixture of ethical relativism and moral objectivism, even though some commonalities of fundamental moral principles exist between certain societies, not every society subscribes to those moral principles. Ethical relativism is based on the premise that morality is relative to the norms of one 's culture. However, moral objectivism is the position that certain acts are universally right or wrong, independent of human opinion. A hybrid approach to these theological philosophies has helped me be successful in the military. As the military moves towards acceptance and understanding of the changing environment, leaders have to be prepared to react in an appropriate manner. The trick is to find the balance between the military values …show more content…
I grew up in a large extended family with my brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, and uncles being a significant part of my life. My parents taught me that family, related or not related, would always be there to support you. They instilled in me that family does not just consist of my blood relatives but the people I invited into my life. They also taught me what it means to be loyal and no matter what your family will always stand beside you. These are the kind of values that I want to instill in my children to become productive members of society. Growing up in a military environment helped shape my moral philosophy of respect for everyone’s culture while still understanding that there are some common principles that should be understood across cultures. My father would always say “Wrong is wrong is wrong no matter how you want to flip that bird.” I never understood that saying until I was older and realize that some things are just inherently wrong. Dealing with racism, challenged me to keep true to my values by allowing me to accept that some people believed that the races should not mix but also recognizing that that particular belief is misguided. Facing people with those types of beliefs was extremely difficult because I was fearful of how they would treat my daughter or my family. With so …show more content…
My top five virtues that I strive to have are patience, compassion, honesty, self-discipline, and loyalty. I believe these traits make me a better leader and ultimately a better person. I try to set an example of a good person for my children and the Soldiers that I lead. I understand that we are not perfect but we should always aim to improve upon ourselves every day. Patience is not a virtue of mine and I struggle to control my emotions when my plans have gone awry. Compassion is a very important trait for leaders because everyone’s situation is different and holding everyone to the same standard is not fair to those individuals. As a commander we are given latitude when administering Uniform Code of Military (UCMJ) actions to subordinates. With this authority we need to consider all relevant issues and show compassion towards those
"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
Some of these includes: being loyal to your leader, courageous in battle, being generous, kind, merciful, being education, and supporting arts. All of these traits together would make up a very good code of conduct for our warriors, and together they would make up a very good warrior or leader.
Moral relativism has two conceptualized frameworks that describe statements. These are Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism. Cognitivism in a nutshell is merely the opposite of non-cognitivism. Relatively, it is the certainty that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are apt for truth and falsity. Moral judgments generally dwell in this arena due to the element that people incline to make moral judgments a large part in their decision-making and anything which is non-existent in moral values tends to be discarded. The spectrum that Cognitivism belongs to is so broad that it encompasses the milieus of moral realism, moral subjectivism and error theory. Hillary Putnam in his book, Ethics without ontology states that ethical (including mathematical) sentences can be factual and unprejudiced
(DK80b1): “Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not.” Protagoras brand of ethical relativism suggested that morality is subjective to the relative context, such as culture, within a family, or even autonomous authority. In the Plato’s Theaetetus Socrates and Theaetetus have a discussion that centers primarily around the epistemology of Protagoras and Heraclitus that knowledge is only perceptions. Socrates puts forth his objections and alternatives. His alternatives likewise center around his theory of the forms and the objectivity of this theory. If knowledge is perceptions to Protagoras, then you can see how morality would be subjective. If I say it is wrong to eat a horse, and someone from Europe says that it is not wrong to eat a horse, then the wrongness of that statement is relative to the culture. Taken further, if one person perceives x as wrong and another person perceives x as right the truth value is relative to an autonomous authority. The distinction in this the ethical nihilism of Gorgias is that there is still belief that these statements have normative value that is truth value.
Who decides what is ethical and what is moral? There are no standards of conduct that everyone in the world agrees upon. There are different religions, cultures and ethnicities in this world and because of that; there will most likely never be a day where everyone finds everything that someone else does to be ethical or moral. Since there can never be a universal standard for morality and ethical behavior for people everywhere, we must stop judging people by looking through the lenses of our culture or society . We must judge someone and his actions by the standards of his culture or society. An action one person considers being justifiable behavior may not be the same case for someone else. When cultures and religions cross paths that do
Respect is probably the most important trait that needs to be shown towards your superiors. Every Armed forces branch in the United States of America has a chain of command in which respect is the main premise behind the entire organization. Respect backs the ideals and leadership within any chain of command. Respect is important in the design of the military system itself. You have to automatically trust and do what higher ranking cadet, or any cadre member says because they hold power and most likely have more experience then you. You must show them respect to because they have more knowledge and know how, not to mention they have earned the stop they are in. Respect also tires into the worrier’s ethos, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a member of the army.
Plato’s theory of happiness is analysed throughout the Republic. He believes as Socrates did that the virtues of courage, temperance, wisdom and justice and the ability to regulate them with harmony is the key to an authentically happy person. The virtue of justice is of particular interest and what its function is in a truly just person and how that relates to happiness. Who is happiest the truly just person destined to be shackled with all the perils of the unjust, or the truly unjust person destined to lead the enriching life of a just person? Plato analyzes justice in terms of the tripartite city first. The idea here is that it is easier to interpret a quality if it is in context of a larger whole. The society being the whole of a person which makes up its parts. If you can define justice based on a truly just city then you could apply this to the person more easily.
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
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
A) The first approach are the nihilist, the skeptic, and the subjectivist, they all have the same belief that there are no moral codes or truths, although skepticism and subjectivism relate to each more because they both decide on what they value. Whereas a nihilist believes that all values are meaningless. So, if a thief decides to rob your house, the only hope the three will have is to want the thief not to rob your house, or tell him what he is doing is against the law. Which means, you cannot use none of the three to solve conflicts. The second approach is ethical relativism which is that each culture has their own beliefs that they follow. An example is an American woman and Muslim woman, an American woman has the freedom to dress how
Who decides what is ethical and what is moral? There are no standards of conduct that everyone in the world agrees upon. There are different religions, cultures and ethnicities in this world and because of that; there will most likely never be a day where everyone finds everything that someone else does to be ethical or moral. Since there can never be a universal standard for morality and ethical behavior for people everywhere, we must stop judging people by looking through the lenses of our culture or society . We must judge a person and his actions by the standards of his culture or society. An action one person considers being justifiable behavior may not be the same case for another person. When cultures and religions
Worldwide societies differ in what they believe to be right and wrong. Moral relativism is the idea that moral principles are relative to one culture or society and independent of others, according to this practice there is no universal moral standard. This moral belief is widely rejected and is seen as unfit in today’s worldwide society. One way which moral relativism can be useful in today’s society is when comparing our society to yesterday’s. The underlying idea of time is what most influences our relative beliefs of morality. This supports the thought that moral values are never absolute. As time progresses we are inclined to view the past with scrutiny and adjust moral compasses accordingly.
Over her years of research, anthropologist Ruth Benedict has found countless evidence that proves ethics are relative, while philosopher W.T. Stace, argues against her stance and says that ethics are not relative but absolute. Benedict believes in moral or ethical relativism; ethical relativism is relative to culture at any particular age, region, and society. Then on the other hand, Stace believes in moral or ethical absolutism, which means there is only one eternally true and valid moral code for all human beings. He also goes on to say, “They are in themselves either right or wrong. What we have to do is to discover which they are.”(94.) Both sides feel very strongly about their views and have a lot to say to back up their ideas.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Within the study of ethics, the principle of subjectivism maintains there are no immutable truths. Founded on an individual’s limited experience, personal rulings are arbitrary statements that reveal one’s attitudes, opinions and emotions not facts. Therefore, in order for a statement to be considered ethically or morally correct, it merely has to be approved by the person n question. By way of further explanation, ethical subjectivism can be said to begin with personal experience of the world and end with generalizations that enable an individual or assembly to render judgments about the world.