In the attempt to explain morality, two prominent theories exist- moral relativism and moral objectivism. Morality in a sense is difficult to explain, both theories attempt to shed a bit of light in way to break down its complexity. Moral Relativism argues in the view that morality exists only due to the fact that it is relative, or in respect to, cultural or individual beliefs. In a sense, it is up to the people to determine what is right and wrong. On the other hand, moral objectivism views that morality is not parallel, or relative, to one 's beliefs. That it is independent and not subjective to one 's interpretations, thus it is objective and universal moral facts exist. Louis. P. Pojman, an American philosopher and professor, was against the idea of moral relativism. In his essay, The Case Against Moral Relativism, he stated the fundamental problems of the theory, detailing his problems with both subjectivism and conventionalism; giving his critique of moral relativism and providing his own insight on how one should view morality with objectivity. Thus presenting his case of moral objectivism. James Rachels, a balding philosopher from Georgia, defended moral relativism. Arguing in point that no universal morals exist, as different societies and groups have different interpretations to what is right and wrong and thus different moral codes exist that hold true for only that particular society or group. Culture relativism was coined a decade ago that provided the basis for that belief. Though in order to argue morality, one must first define and understand morality.
Morality is best described in the sense of what are right and wrong values or of what is evil or good as well as what makes a person good or b...
... middle of paper ...
...In the argument of If we look at things like freedom and natural rights, we can go back to the Enlightenment. Off the top of my head, theorists like John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Voltaire (among dozens of others) are responsible for the conception of human rights that we have today. What did those guys have in common? They were all humans. So there we have it again. The originator of the pro-choice values is man.Rachels also presents a “No-Proof Argument” in which he states that we cannot “prove some moral opinions are true and which are false. Therefore there is no such thing as an objective truth in ethics.”(First Edition, 41) In essence, Rachels is arguing that because we could not prove these “moral truths”, they do not exist. In the case of abortion again, Rachels argues that because there is disagreement, it provides evidence that moral truths do not stand.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- 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.... [tags: Morality, Moral relativism, Relativism]
1352 words (3.9 pages)
- 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.... [tags: Ethics, Morality, Virtue, Military]
1326 words (3.8 pages)
- Cultural relativism is the term given to the idea that there are no universal moral values that apply to all mankind and that every culture has its own set of moral principles. This set of principles varies from culture to culture, and it is extremely rare, if not totally impossible, to find a moral principle that is followed by all cultures. For example, the idea of arranged marriages, which is the concept of two families marrying their son and daughter even though they don’t particularly know each other, is fairly common in Indian culture but non-existent in American culture.... [tags: Morality, Cultural relativism, Moral relativism]
1457 words (4.2 pages)
- We might say that killing another person for absolutely no reason is wrong. But why is it seen that way. Is it because we as individuals or as a society believe it to be wrong. Or is it because there are objective rules of the universe that would be true whether or not we thought it was wrong. 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.... [tags: Morality, Religion, Moral relativism, Ethics]
813 words (2.3 pages)
- Cultures and societies around the world often have different moral beliefs. From an anthropological perspective, to deny cultures any validity in their moral beliefs would be a delusional ethnocentric refusal of cultural relativism. From a moral philosophical perspective, however, this is a conflicting matter. Is morality then simply a social construct based purely on arbitrary opinions. Are there no universal moral truths. In response, conventional ethical relativism puts forth the notion that there are indeed no objective moral truths.... [tags: Morality, Cultural relativism, Moral relativism]
936 words (2.7 pages)
- 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.... [tags: Morality, Cultural relativism, Moral relativism]
964 words (2.8 pages)
- The debate between moral relativists and moral cognitivists is centered around the question of whether there exists a metric by which actions and intentions can be judged. To avoid any confusion and prevent the opportunity for any strawman attacks, morality will be considered in a broad sense as the distinction between what a person ought to do and ought not do. Also, moral relativism will be defined as holding the belief that moral actions are relative, or subjective, to contextual circumstance and that there exists no metric by which actions and intentions can thereby be globally judged.... [tags: Morality, Moral relativism, Relativism, Culture]
1028 words (2.9 pages)
- In his essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is an unsatisfactory moral theory because it is based upon an invalid argument, if cultural relativism were true, this would have some troubling and implausible consequences, and there are some moral rules common to all societies. In this short paper, I will argue that moral objectivism is a more satisfactory moral theory than ethical relativism. Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13).... [tags: Morality, Ethics, Culture, Cultural relativism]
1031 words (2.9 pages)
- As we discussed chapter 3, I learned about Ethical Relativism, meta-ethics, cultural relativism, objective relativism, and subjective relativism. This topic is very difficult for me to come to an agreement based on someone’s cultural belief and practices. For starters, meta-ethics is a branch of ethics that deals with the meaning of moral principles and/or statements and their “truth” status in the world. Meta-ethics focuses on the religious beliefs and cultural practices and whether is right or wrong or good and bad.... [tags: Morality, Ethics, Moral relativism]
1040 words (3 pages)
- Many seem to have falling prey to the seduction of ethical relativism, because it plays in to their ethnocentric egoistic moral belief. Individuals such as Pojman are able to critically evaluate this moral principle and not fall victim like his or hers lay counter parts. We will attempt to analyze the theory of ethical relativism, by check the validity of this ethical theory, and evaluate its ethical concepts. With these procedures we will find if it is competent as an ethical principle to adhere by.... [tags: Ethics, Morality, Moral relativism, Relativism]
1071 words (3.1 pages)