Consequences Of Taking Cultural Realism

728 Words2 Pages

Objections.
1. That morality is not relative, Rachel argues, “ Claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish”. She argues that we do not need morality because of culture differences and values based on where we are. Also talks about what can be learned from relativism and states that because of it morality is not needed and know what to do based on their moral codes.

2. Consequences of Taking Cultural Realism Seriously, (1. We can no longer say that other cultures societies are inferior to our own 2. We decide whether our actions are right or wrong by consulting the standards of our society, 3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt). Stating that different cultures agree on different things because of what they value which makes them different from each other.

3. Disagreement is not a problem, Rachels’ states that even if a majority of a group say they do not disagree it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone needs to disagree with it. Which doesn’t make it necessarily wrong but means that a group does not fully agree on something. An example is how some cultures eat cows and others chose not to. It doesn’t mean that it is morally …show more content…

Without knowing the difference our actions would not fully represent us and would not be true to what we are trying to accomplish. If we did not know the difference then we could not make simple decisions without knowing which one to make. We are born with a conscience it is something that we should use constantly. You learn what is right and wrong the moment you are baby by observing around you and learning from your parents. Its important for us to know what is morally correct and not just socially acceptable. There is a huge difference between what is actually right and what is actually condoned and normalized by

Show More
Related

  • Ruth Benedict Ethics Are Relative Summary

    770 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Ruth Benedict’s “Ethics are Relative”, she argues that because morals and values change with time and across culture, there can be no solid judgment for any action to be consistently deemed “right” or “wrong”, since the same action will be viewed differently when considered from different points of view. Benedict’s primary assertion is that the ethics seen as good or bad by modern cultures are not better to those found in primitive cultures, but are the values we have developed over time. “Most of the simpler cultures did not gain the wide currency of the one which, out of our experience, we identify with human nature, but this was for various historical reasons, and certainly not for any that gives us as its carriers a monopoly of social

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Professor Beckwith

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals

    Read More

  • Cultural Competence and Informed Consent in Health Care: Confronting a Fetal Abnormality

    1708 Words  | 4 Pages

    Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.

    Read More

  • Issues in Mexico

    1097 Words  | 3 Pages

    Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Moral Relativism

    1083 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Morality And Objective Morality

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Rejection of Naïve Realism

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rejection of Naïve Realism Naive realism is the way the majority of people are aware of their world, and is based on the assumption that what they are seeing and experiencing is real; that they understand their world through knowledge gained from these experiences. However, certain arguments reject that this world is as familiar as it seems, presenting a need for revision of the naive realist's concept of reality. We discard the idea that the senses offer a reliable window on the world and come to state that our perception is simply a veil that cloaks reality. What we consider to be objective, can be held to be, in fact, highly subjective - a slurred version of reality seen through human bias and constructs, the human mind projecting itself onto what is perceived.

    Read More

  • Moral Morality

    1847 Words  | 4 Pages

    Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United

    Read More

  • Morality is Relative

    634 Words  | 2 Pages

    The first mistake is in his comparison following the example of there being different moral codes. In outlining and explaining the cultural differences argument, he gives an example that he began the article with regarding the Callatians and the Greeks, and their differences in funerary practices. Rachels asks that "from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter?" His answer is that "no," and that the answer one could derive is that one of those beliefs is altogether incorrect and wrong. Here Rachels' statement seems to negate that which he wants to negate but it is through manipulation of the parties involved and the adding of "facts' that aren't there. These two cultures in his example to not disagree about anything, there are simply two different ways they deal with death. Because they are different, doesn't necessarily imply there is any disagreement. So my answer is yes, this example does mean that there is no objective truth, because we cannot say that their practice (Greeks vs. the Callatians) is incorrect or immoral as much as they can say our practices are immoral. To label a culture's belief in certain practices as possibly being "mistaken," doesn't sound very openminded in any way at all.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Divine Command Theory

    1099 Words  | 3 Pages

    Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their

    Read More

  • Thesis Statement On Moral Relativism

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • What Is Cultural Relativism?

    1065 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Social Contract Theory and Cultural Relativism

    2200 Words  | 5 Pages

    Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...

    Read More

  • Moral Relativism

    1958 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Read More

  • Ethical Relativism and Cultural Relativism

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...mplication would be significant in that it would give rise to judgment of morality outside and independent of culture. One example would be the active practice of anti-Semitism directed at the destruction of Jewish peoples. Could such a practice ever be construed as an opinion or even routine cultural custom? By any stretch it would be hard to imagine anything less than universal condemnation of killing for no other reason than genocide. This objection is strong, perhaps opening an avenue of attack toward Cultural Relativism on the basis of some type of universal morality. It is impossible to conceive of an arbiter to judge such a class of morality. Even though the example is strongly suggestive, that’s not the same as proving with certainty that there are sufficient grounds to say that it should be okay to consider any custom of another culture as inferior.

    Read More

More about Consequences Of Taking Cultural Realism

Open Document