Theories Of Moral Relativism

Theories Of Moral Relativism
Moral relativism :
Moral relativism is the thing which is simply understood in contrast to moral autocracy that claims that morals relies on universal values and the god is
the ultimate source of our common morality and that it is therefore as unchanging as what he is actually and the moral relativism asserts that morality is
not based on any absolute standard and rather ethical "truths" depend on variables like state and culture etc
It is considered as influence for moral relativism which exhibit their uncertain nature while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support
relativism might sound good at first there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the "right" moral scheme–the one
we all ought to go behind but this itself is autocracy and the second there is even so–called relativists reject
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

1. In the article Ethical Relativism, the authors give a quick overview of what ethical relativism is by defining what it is and what its problems and
successes are. One thing that is helpful for analyzing ethical systems is looking at the system through the lense of different ethical situations. Since
this article lacks this feature, we will be looking at the definition of ethical relativism in the case of Slavery to help show the problems that occur
with this system. We will begin by summarizing what is being said in the article and then lead into an analyzation of this situation using this system.
2. To begin, the authors assume that one thing that remains indefinite is that ethical and moral practices differ widely depending on the culture that is
being looked at (1). They relate this to the example of taking another person 's life. Although it is assumed that all people and cultures believe that
murder and the killing of a person is wrong, this is far from the truth and can be proved wrong by many cultures throughout history (1). The authors
give many examples that range from "a husband having the right of life and death over his wife" to the killing of someone who has stolen from
another (1). While these ethical principles may seem strange or cruel to us, in those cultures they are considered to be ethically correct. These examples
help to show the major differences that can be seen within the ethical systems of different cultures. 3. This then leads the authors to

Moral Relativism
Different cultures view ethics in different ways. I think that moral relativism should be viewed the same way all across the world. Some cultures
praise the wrong doing of their people and celebrate their behavior whether it is wrong or right. Other cultures, will shun a group or individual if he
/she was doing something unethical. As a society, America tends to judge an action before we hear the story or background of the person. Our country
is a prime example of how moral relativism applies to everyday actions. If someone is committing a crime, the individual will be sentenced and
punished if necessary. However in other countries, an individual that has done wrong may go free. For example, the incident that happened in
Tunis, Tunsania, now has a video created on the people that committed the acts. In American culture, the people that committed the crime would have
been caught, tried and sent to jail. In some cultures, what one deems as unethical, may be another society's norm. Take abortion as an example, we as
Americans may view a mother having an abortion as a "wrongful act", but in some...show more content...
Many cultures today have belief in a higher power. Individual countries may not view the same practice to get to eternal life, but all agree that
there is life after death. For instance, many Christians believe praising God and living according to the bible will get people into heaven. On the
other hand, Muslims believe that following the Koran and praying to the East will get people into eternal glory. These religions both have the same
idea that one must do something in order to seek the face of God and to live right so they can enter the gates of heaven. They may worship
differently to get there, but still have the same general idea. "There is an increasing desire and an increasing will across the world today to build a
sustainable and just world," (Tippett, Kirsta,

Moral Relativism, By James Rachels
In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the
differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise
false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief
relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as
moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral
relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality,
therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.
An argument is an attempt to prove that something is true (or probably true) by offering evidence. In philosophy there are usually three premises that
are part of the argument. Premises are evidence used to attempt to prove the conclusion. The third premise is the one that sums up that argument.
Arguments can be objectively true or subjectively true. For an argument, x is objectively true if and only if x is the case, and x is subjectively true for
S if and only if x coheres with S's worldview of X is simply a matter of taste.

Ethical Relativism Essays
Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion,
traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the "doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of
actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether
or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs"(Pojman, 24). Within the meaning of
...show more content...
This basically saying that "what is considered morally right and wrong varies form society to society"(Pojman,26), meaning that there is no
universally morals which are accepted by all societies. This has truth to it because all cultures differ, what might be right in one country/society
/religion may not be morally acceptable in other societies. In some cultures it might be morally acceptable to value slavery, genocide, or female
circumcision; even though one may not like or approve of these practices, a cultural relativist must say this was acceptable because these practices
are deemed as being acceptable within that culture. The second is the dependency thesis, "whether or not it is right or wrong for an individual to act
in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which she or he belongs" (Pojman, 26). This means that there are still going to be
"fundamental disagreements" among societies due to the fact that there are different practices under the same moral principle. Which one is
acceptable solely depends on which culture you are from and where it is practiced. Although ethical relativism makes valid points that there are no
valid universal moral principles but rather moral principles that are relative to culture or an individual's choice; it also has objections that in which
problems arise from this theory. The idea of Subjectivism; which is

Moral Relativism Reflection
Throughout my history education, many facts have been drilled into my head. I know dates and names, but before this class I didn't have much
opportunity to actually think about these facts objectively. As it has been explained to me: "History is a portrait that is printed differently depending
on the artist's bias" (Roderick), that is to say that just as each artists painting of the same thing would vary, and that the same concept applies to
history. The past is often presented to us as mere facts, and it is this class that has given me the opportunity to assume the job of a historian and create
my own storyline. Moral Relativism plays a huge part in my personal thought process about history. I tend to attempt to see things from more than just
my perspective. Though I may disagree with many of the actions taken throughout history, my belief is that it is important to look at and understand the
mindsets that lead to these events. This analysis of mindsets rather than just pure facts allows a more thoughtful view of history, that I believe is
essential in order to truly understand the subject. One major example of how different perceptions of facts can lead to different narratives are the
causes of the American Revolution. There are two main viewpoints that are typically seen on these series of events: The Colonist's perspective and the
English perspective. Though there are many different lenses to view this topic through, these two are most commonly analyzed due to the

Ethical Relativism And Moral Relativism
In this paper, I will argue against moral relativism as the correct way to judge human morality. There are several issues with moral relativism, and I
will focus on why moral relativism's argument is false and also consider the implications of accepting relativism. I will propose an alternative
framework for making moral judgments about right and wrong and consider relativist objections.
Philosophers often vary in their usage of moral relativism, so, for the purpose of this paper, I will be considering moral relativism to be the belief that
moral judgments are right and wrong only relative to the framework of a community. It follows from this that relativists also believe no moral
standpoint can be proved to be objectively superior to another.
Let us consider the argument that moral relativism proposes. Since a relativist believes that moral absolutes do not exist, it follows that he must
believe that all moral claims are only preferences. For example, a relativist would say that the claim 'murder is wrong' is true only if and only if the
speaker believes it is true. So, if I say 'Killing is wrong', it is morally true if I actually believe what I say. It follows from this that, according to
relativism, moral disagreements are disagreements about preferences (as opposed to facts). This is because, as mentioned, relativism believes morality
to be preferences, so disagreements of morality must be disagreements over preferences. Since this claim follows from the main argument,

The Pros And Cons Of Moral Relativism
Pope Benedict once said, "We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its
highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." When discussing the idea of Moral Relativism there are conflicting arguments as to if it is true
in society or not. As much as Americans wish to ignore it, and although it has negative as well as positive effects, moral relativism is apparent all
over the world. Moral Relativism is true and relevant today through individuals and cultures. There are disadvantages to having a presence of moral
relativism. There is a chance that people will abuse their power to have individual perceptions of right and wrong. Since each culture has their own
...show more content...
Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people's views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with
this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices
without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they
believe to be right and wrong. It is fair to agree with the idea of Moral Relativism. Each culture has their own views of right or wrong. Stepping
into different cultures is similar to being a part of new societies, each with differing practices and ideals. There is no single definition of what is
right or what is wrong. Individuals has their own opinions on separate topics and each reason for a belief is acceptable. For example, in some
cultures it is important for a man to have multiple wives and women are not allowed to leave their homes without a man accompanying them. In the
United States, it is not acceptable to have multiple wives and each woman has the freedom to go where ever they like whenever they please. When
discussing the idea of abortion individuals have opposing views depending on what their morals are and if they believe in the life of an unborn child.
While some people believe it is entirely up to the pregnant women whether they desire to abort their

Paul Boghossian Moral Relativism
Over the last several decades, long established taboo, including the right to abortion, the right to death, and LGBTQIA+ rights have become much
more acceptable throughout the United States. Consequently, it seems like basic moral norms are up to the interpretation of current and societal
ideals. Moral relativism is the belief that the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' exist only by comparison to a society's moral code. It is an enticing moral
theory in a world where so little seems absolute. Paul Boghossian, author of "The Maze of Moral Relativism" too believes that this idea of relativism is
gaining popularity and importance in contemporary culture. However, he not only believes that moral relativism is not true, but an illogical or
'incoherent' moral theory. Moral relativism, he claims, cannot exist because there is no middle ground between 'moral absolutism,' the idea that moral
facts are true across all cultures and time, and 'moral nihilism,' the rejection of all morality as people understand it, including the ideas of 'right' and
'wrong.' Boghossian's argument is able to logically destroy moral relativism, leaving little option other than to accept that absolute morality exists
somewhere.
Boghossian first shows how moral relativism is not a viable theory by...show more content...
For example, he says that if a person was invited to eat dinner with the Queen in Buckingham Palace, that the guest should not slurp her noodles; in
contrast, she should slurp her noodles in Xian, China where it signifies the enjoyment of a meal. These different conventions mean that the way to eat
is not absolute. This does not, however, point to moral relativism. Though Boghossian concedes differences in customs across cultures, he does not
equate convention to morality. Showing differences in behaviors actually damages the argument of the moral relativist further by making a strong case
for the existence of moral

Moral Relativism
Ethical behavior is different in every culture. One culture may see something as ethically right where another may see it as wrong. Moral relativism
plays a role in accepting differences between cultures, even if they do not agree. Everyone is different. Each region of the world has beliefs in how
things should be done. Rules are set to guide them in creating a sense of control over actions. Not every action is justifiable, but there are ways to find
out what is really the reason for a certain culture to say something is right or wrong. "For example, an ancient society might have considered dyeing
one's hair green to be a punishable offense. Most modern societies would find that strange, if not oppressive. Yet, good cultural perspective might tell us
more. If we were to find out that green hair was a sign of a prostitute, we would understand that it wasn't the hair color itself, but the prostitution that
was truly considered "wrong."(allaboutphilosophy.org/cultural–relativism.htm)." We need to be able to look at an...show more content...
We believe in individuality and that everyone has the right to make decisions on how to live. Some may not see that our way of life is ok. If we
had a visitor from another country, like Africa, come to America and observe the marriage of two same sex people, they may see that as ethically
wrong. We cannot tell them it is right, we can only hope they can understand. Acceptance of different cultural beliefs is hard for many cultures to
achieve. Even in the U.S., we struggle with ethical relativism amongst our fellow American. There are many religions in America. Every religion
gives a specific belief in how life is supposed to be. Someone with one religion may see that giving to the poverty stricken area is the right thing to
do, and another person from a different religious background may see it as morally wrong because the poverty stricken individuals need to work and
create a better life for

Examples Of Moral Relativism
I.Relativism vs. Objectivism Ethical relativism defined by Vaughn; it is not objective, because if an act is morally right by one person or morally
wrong by a different person, then that is okay as well. Moral objectivism is defined as moral norms are valid for everyone. Rachels and Vaughn both
define cultural relativism as moral rightness is whatever a culture or society approves of. Cultural relativism and ethical relativism basically consist of
the exempt same theory. Thus being whether its and individual's belief or a society's belief both are acceptable. "If people's moral judgements differ
from culture to culture, moral norms are relative to culture (there are no objective moral standards)" (Vaughn 15). Moral objectivism is related to...show
more content...
A good argument against moral objectivism could be that there are no moral objective truth's just relative ones. Another objection to moral
objectivism could be that there are no empirical objective moral facts, and this would be why people disagree. Basically saying I disagree with it.
Therefore, we cannot reach a universal agreement. V.Defending Moral Objectivism I believe moral objectivism is better than ethical relativism
because some moral norms can be objective. Not all moral norms are subject for debate but some clearly can be. I can make the argument that human
life is valuable, whereas euthanasia can be objective depending on your religious or cultural belief. The permissibility rules you accept are for you
neither justified nor unjustified: they justify. As long as you have a set of permissibility rules that do not require impossible actions, or posit
non–existing entities, there are no epistemic or practical reasons for rejecting or it. Drowning a child for pleasure because you believe you have the
right to is completely wrong. Human life is valuable no matter what religion or culture you are or come from. In ethical relativism, you are saying it's
okay to drown a child because that's what you believe in or don't believe

What Does Moral Relativism Means
Relativism– is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to (or dependent on) some other element or aspect. Therefore,
as Aristotle expressed it, things are what they are only relative to other things, and nothing is what it is simply in virtue of itself. (Basic Philosophy)
Moral Relativism– is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims
relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. (Basic Philosophy) Relativism claims that ethics are relative to individuals, groups,
cultures, and societies. Relativism resists universal norms and has different cultures and different codes. Some Eskimo Cultures believe men...show
more content...
Female babies in particular are likely to be killed at the parents' choice with no shame attached. As for America people we would probably think
that they beliefs are wrong compared to our beliefs. But who are we to say if it is right or wrong because different societies have different codes
and the moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong in that society. Calling the action right in that society makes it right, at least within
that society. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society's code against another. Is it arrogant to judge other cultures are
should we be tolerant of them? We need to ask the question: but is it true? One way to get at the truth is realizing it is self–defeating. We cannot
criticize know other culture judgement if they are following their moral code. But according to moral relativism, there is not a single true or just
morality. We tend to believe that what is good for some people is not necessarily good for others. On the other hand, we also argue with one another
all the time about what actually is right and wrong. We do not seem to accept the view that there is no better

Moral Relativism Defended Summary
In Gilbert Harman's 'Moral Relativism Defended'. He claims that we make inner judgements about people only if we suppose that they are capable
of being motivated by relevant moral considerations (RMCs). He goes on to claim that such moral considerations present an logical 'oddity' if it
were applied to people outside our RMCs, where he cites examples like Hitler and the employee from Murder, Incorporated to further illustrate this
fact. I do not subscribe to his treatment of such examples, and I argue that the logical oddities he points out in those examples are flawed. They are
flawed in the sense that such oddities cannot be explained vis–Г –vis inner arguments, but rather without any reference to relativism at all. Harman has
made two claims about inner judgements. Firstly that "They...show more content...
His examples may seem to further affirm the fact that once agents are out of our motivational reach, any inner judgements about them present a
logical oddity ,but yet not all his examples are equally improper (logically odd) as each other. This suggests that logical oddities he points out in
the examples are flawed. Firstly let us consider a scenario involving Spike in his car and a pedestrian. When Spike collides with a pedestrian, by
saying ' you should not have done such a thing' , my inner judgement is justified. Of course Spike could come up with a explanation ' the brakes
failed!' . In this case our inner judgement may have been too hasty, even false. However what remains is still a logically valid inner judgement
regardless of how hasty or false it is. It does not become senseless. If we now turn to the car and blame it for the collision, that would then become a
senseless act. This has been illustrated clearly by the example which Harman brings up of the ' intelligent beings from outer space' . He tries to

Moral Relativism
Moral Relativism has achieved a great position in the modern world and has also received a lot of criticism. The reason behind the criticism is that
Moral relativism is now being widely used by the society as a way of thinking. Due to such a wide perception of Moral Relativism in the community,
the default view of Morality held by a large part of the community is in the form of Moral Relativism. One of the main reasons for facing criticism is
that the view of Moral Relativism is thought by many of the young individuals to have destructive consequences. Moral Relativism is providing the
freedom to set one's own morals which will be relative to one's own norms and policies. If someone uses the freedom in an incorrect form by setting
the norms

ETHICAL (MORAL) RELATIVISM Essay
RUNNING HEADING: ETHICAL (MORAL) RELATIVISM
Ethical (Moral) Relativism
Exploring Kohlberg's stance on Ethical Relativism
JebbehG
Ethics in Contemporary Society | PHI101 A01
July 17, 2013
Introduction
Presently, Americans are comfortable relating ethics to individuality. Often times, American citizens expresses their right of freedoms to enhance their
own sense of ethics or relativity. In defining relativism, moral principles are a matter of personal feelings and individual preference. As for individual
moral relativism, figuring out what is moral and immoral in specific circumstances differs according to the person. On another note, moral relativists
have a disbelief in universal truths or common law....show more content...
In addition, it will review Kohlberg's moral stages of development and why he believes that many cultural relativists are trapped in a particular stage.
As a final touch, this essay will discuss personal beliefs and experiences in relation to each topic, and why I agree or disagree with these reasoning.
What is more moral relativism? Previously moral relativism was defined as being right or wrong, and the second deals with the difference between an
objective and a subjective truth. Thinking that ethical truth is biased, moral relativists often react to moral conclusions about homosexual behavior
(Klikauer, 2011). To these individuals, the term homosexual is rubbish because everyone'smorality is equivalent. In short, nobody has a right to a
morality that is incumbent on others.
Being objective (individual) honest is recognized as the best choice; however, it is not the easiest decision (Owen, 2011). For example, parents or
educators do not chastise students merely for getting their answer wrong in Math problems. For many students, their mistakes would be coherent, not
moral. Another example would be a husband beats his wife is simply indecent; therefore, he' is considered as being immoral.
Based on Quintelier & Fessler (2012) findings, cultural relativism is considered as an interpretation that all views, customs, and ethics are comparative
to the individual within his or her own societal

Ethical Relativism Moral Or Immoral
Brittany Haskell Mr. Legge CLN 4U Due: December 19, 2014 Ethical Relativism Moral or Immoral 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. Moral or ethical relativism is the idea that what is considered moral or immoral depends on the accepted behaviors within the society in
which the determination is made. Therefore, what is considered moral or ethical in one society may be considered immoral or unethical in another,
but each society is equally correct. For this reason the question remains, if and action is considered to be moral does that mean that the action is also
normal? Although something may seem right to someone living in a different community, people living in a society like ours today may feel
differently. Ethical Relativism can be looked at are moral or immoral in many different ways. Looking at the articles Guarding The Boundaries, A
Defense of Ethical Relativism and Butterflies and Wheels, it is clearly shown that although ethnical relativism may seem immoral, but really in many
ways is moral. In the article Guarding The Boundaries, by Anthony Daniels. The philosopher states that men can no more avoid making moral and
aesthetic judgments than they can avoid eating. In our society it is clearly shown that abuse is incorrect and immoral, but looking at in in a different
perspective can

Moral Relativism Essay
When it comes to prescribing the medication, the physician is the one who decides what the best course of action is. Although typically "most patients
have received a prescription for an oral dosage of a barbiturate (pentobarbital or secobarbital), and beginning in 2015, a phenobarbital/chloral hydrate
/morphine sulfate/ethanol mix has also been used" (Death with Dignity 2017.) Additionally, these prescriptions are not free and can cost anywhere
from $400 to $600 depending on what medication is used. Although the prices for these medications have increased because of the European Union
ban on exports to the United States of the liquid form of pentobarbital. This ban exists because it was being used for capital punishment which is
"illegal and deemed...show more content...
Physician Assisted Death and Moral RelativismWhile the literature in this topic is limited there are concepts within the abortion literature and death
penalty literature that can be used while discussing public support for physician assisted death. One of the concepts that is discussed within the
abortion literature is the increase in moral relativism. Moral relativism is defined as "a philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment and holds that
there is no right or wrong; there is no good or evil. Rather, partly because of cultural circumstances, what an individual decides is right for him is what
is right" (Ujda 2015.) Although moral relativism can be defined in different ways, ultimately what all those definitions share is the idea that "there
exists more than one truth about some moral cases" (Giubilini 2014.) What moral relativism argues is that a person may think that what they believe is
correct but others may not because of different cultural backgrounds. This means that moral relativism provides

Moral Relativism Research Paper
Moral Relativist
We all face moral decisions each day. However, those daily situations may not oblige you to stop and think critically about your moral reasoning. Moral
Relativism is ethical judgments that has a philosophized belief that right and wrong is not absolute values, nevertheless are personalized according to
the person and his or her situation or cultural orientation. Therefore moral relativism comes in two forms, "what's right for you but not for me. The
second form is cultural subjective or cultural relativism saying "morality differs with different cultural" so each culture has its own form of morality,
and whatever is right for each culture means its right without an ultimate standard of what is ultimately right. It is the claim that no ethical system is
better than another. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are one–sided. It holds the certainty that there is no objective morality. Moral
Relativism cannot...show more content...
It's extremely difficult for me personally to be objective because I am sure that with different cultures come different beliefs and customs. Although
depending on the circumstances such as "It is wrong to torture innocent babies just for fun", I am morally objective. I don't believe that it s right
anywhere by anyone to torture babies for fun. That fact that someone could do that action for "fun" as the reason shows me that they have knowledge
of what they are doing and it is not based on cultural standards. I am certain that to torture babies for "fun" is unethical and it's an action of pure evil
and wrong. Perhaps if they didn't know why they were torturing babies then my answer may have been relativist but to do such an action with a
justification for 'fun" then it's absolutely and entirely

Theories Of Moral Relativism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Theories Of Moral Relativism