Universal morality and cultural relativism
Student X
University of the People
PHIL 1404
Introduction
In some cultures, whenever we try to put in place procedures that allow the population to be regular, we find ourselves confronted with certain people who feel attacked because they are simply not in order. One can take as an example the case of Mordidas in Mexico City, where it is possible to take the money in the city, and then redistribute the money back. Goes straight into the officer's pocket. Based on what we have learned in this unit, we will try to answer the following questions:
1. What is cultural relativism, and how does the vision of ethics associated with it diverge from the traditional
…show more content…
In each culture there are moral values which may not be considered the same for other cultures. Such differences may suggest that morality is only a question of cultural taste and that there are no universal moral principles, which brings us to the important ethical concept of "ethical relativism".
Cultural relativism is the theory that morality is relative to the norms of its culture. Whether an action is good or bad depends on the moral standards that are practical in this society. An action that is morally right in one society may not be in another. According to the relativist, there are no universally accepted moral standards applicable to any culture; the only moral norms that exist are those practiced by a given society.
2. The Mexico City process of getting and paying off a traffic ticket is different from the process in other countries. What values and advantages can be associated with the process in Mexico City? How can it be justified in ethical terms?
The process of obtaining and reimbursing a ticket in Mexico City is different from the process in other countries. The values are different and there are advantages associated with them. It contains the following values: Inconsistency, Ease, and
…show more content…
The process is considered economically efficient, reducing intermediaries. This practice is accepted because police officers in Mexico and Haiti are less paid than in those in United States of America. Since this practice has been accepted, it no longer disturbs anyone and the government says it does not have enough money to run an effective judicial system. This process encourages corruption, makes the law subjective and almost non-existent.
Considering these facts one can say that cultural relativism has been well established in relation to traditional ethical theories, the corruption process is accepted based on the fact that one society has the possibility to pay its officers better and the other does not have the possibility to do, so is obliged to accept the corruption that is being made.
Values and morality are not specific to certain culture and corruption relative to another one. Cultural relativism is totally different from the traditional ethical theories, which is to formulate rules of action that everyone, people of all time, places and communities, must obey if they want to consider themselves ethically responsible. This is where the conflict is found, where one wants the rules to be specific to one culture and the other wants the same rules to be followed by all
Our moral beliefs indicate the kind of environment or culture we grew up in. Therefore, if we were born in Somalia, we would believe that it is morally right to go through female circumcision as a rite of passage. However, if we grew up in the western world, then we would not believe in female circumcision. We can therefore see the relativist 's argument of cultural relativism in this case, because if cultural relativism exists, then naturally, morality will also be relative. Additionally, to support his stance, the relativist will also argue that tolerance comes into play when it comes to cultural relativism.
Another issue with cultural relativism is the fact that people choose not to learn about the different cultures because it is different from what they know/are used to. With Amish in the City, cultural
R01365382 Ethical Relativism is the belief that what is morally right and wrong varies from culture to culture, or even from person to person. Ruth Benedict writes, “A Defense of Ethical Relativism”, in which she presents data she has collected to defend ethical relativism. In contrast, Louis Pojman writes, “A Critique of Ethical Relativism”, in which he presents various problems with ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is not a good way of deciding between what is morally right and what is morally wrong.
C.S. Lewis had three main objectives to moral relativism. The first one is the Moral law of right and wrong. Lewis says, “whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in right and wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later” (Lewis, 2007, p.19). “He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining” (Lewis, 2007, p.17). What Lewis is saying is that people often feel that if someone does something wrong to them then it is morally wrong, however when the roles are reversed and they do something wrong to someone else then it is not morally considered wrong from their point of view.
Cultural relativism is the understanding of other cultures in their own terms. To achieve the understanding of the rituals used in the cultures of another, one must be able to look at them from an emic (insider) perspective. One must also be able to look at his own culture from an etic (outsider) perspective. The ability to look at one’s culture from the etic point of view will make it easier to explain the rituals to someone from a different culture, for example, rites of passage. Rites of passage are used to mark a life stage and are celebrated by tradition or religion, meant to separate a specific group.
Which of the following is not a problem with Ethical Relativism: C) not academic enough 12. According to James Rachels, which of the following would be a universal
In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are opposite viewpoints of one subject, culture. When a culture tries to evaluate another culture based on a singular viewpoint it is known as ethnocentrism. But cultures can be evaluated using individual standards since there is not one set of standards that culture fits into. I realize that most people agree with the concept of cultural relativism but there are some problems. According to an article by Henry H. Bagish entitled Confessions of a Former Cultural Relativist, states that cultural relativism can cause people to justify immoral and unjustifiable actions.
The chapter about ethical relativism presents another side of the way we can perceive morality. The author distinguishes between moral nihilism and ethical relativism. According to moral nihilism, moral goodness is either a fiction or meaningless and there are no moral truths in this theory. On the other hand, ethical relativists claim that mankind creates morality. This chapter focuses on the two kinds of ethical relativism: cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism.
In the discussion of moral objectivism and moral relativism, it is important to understand the difference, and the impact that a moral system has on the criminal justice community. The community exists to enforce the laws. Moral judgments are made with votes, and the decisions on how laws are crafted are made by elected officials. For this reason, it makes sense for the criminal justice community to separate themselves professionally from their own moral views. Moral Relativism is the view of morality, much like beauty, is relative to the person, culture, or organization.
Every society has its own unique cultures in which people will have different ideas of moral codes. The diversity of these cultures cannot be said to be correct or incorrect. Every society has independent standards of ethic within their society and these standards are culture-bound. Cultural Relativism has a perception in which rightness or wrongness of an action depends entirely within the bounds of the culture. This theory opposes the belief in the objectivity of moral truth.
Writers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Bernard Williams and Philippa Foot have abandoned “the project of rationally justifying a single norm of flourishing life for and to all human beings.” They deny that ethics can have trans-cultural norms
In other words, “right” or “wrong” are culture specific, what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality that exist, no one has the right to judge another societies custom (Ess, 2009). Cultural Relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What makes up right and wrong is determined solely by individual or the society (Ess, 2009). Since the truth is not object, there can be no standards which applies to all cultures.
An important role is carried out by the criminal justice system in a democratic society. My philosophy and approach for balancing individual rights and public protection is that law enforcement authorities should restrict citizens’ liberties through force to compel obedience of law if those liberties cause harm to the society. Authorities maintain law and order by restricting freedoms of the citizens through force to constrain them to obey the law penalizing those who disobey the law. However, the citizens must be free to exercise the freedoms granted and guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the law must give way to reasonable exercise of civil liberties when those freedoms do not cause harm to others.
The Strength and Vulnerability of Different Moral Views Over centuries of fervent discussion in the moral world, there is still nothing like a consensus on a set of moral views. This essay attempts to outline and critically evaluate two moral views, namely ethical objectivism and cultural relativism. It is crucial to understand that both moral theories cannot be true at the same time as it results in contradictions, contributing to false beliefs. Additionally, it is essential that we discuss these issues with an open-mind so as to gain deeper insights from them. First and foremost, we will be looking at the prominent view of ethical objectivism.