This paper will attempt to summarize and explain the essay How to Argue about Disagreement: Evaluative Diversity and Moral Realism by John M. Doris and Alexandra Plakias. They claim that moral realism has a problem with its assertion that all disagreement is superficial, and would not persist under ideal conditions. They cite an experiment by Nisbett and Cohen in 1996 where there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between northern and southern white American men surrounding acceptable violence. Moral realism is the philosophical idea that morality is based in objective fact.
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.
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.
The final chapter, chapter 21, of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, emphasis is placed on the fact that moral objectivity is not always completely universal but does not mean the idea of moral objectivism has to be rejected. Moral objectivism states that moral standards should be universal but there are some circumstances and exceptions to this claim. Shafer-Landau presents eleven arguments in chapter 21 that some consider challenges to the universality principle of moral objectivity. Not only will moral objectivism be examined in this paper but also another philosophical view known as moral skepticism will be discussed. In addition to the arguments present by Shafter-Landau’s book this paper will include an analysis from
56–63. Accessed 1. Baghramian, Maria and Carter, J. Adam, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = (-- removed HTML --) . 2.
Moral truth is relative to certain cultures. The author uses an example of polygamy, and how the statement “polygamy is wrong” is true for western cultures, but it may be false for others. There is not a deciding factor or an independent being that can decide whether polygamy is right or wrong, and it would be arrogant to impose our own particular moral point of view about polygamy to these other cultures (Law 50). Another form of relativism is conceptive. Conceptual relativism is how different people perceive something, and how their truths may differ from one another, but can still be right based on their perspective.
Culture is often defined as a group’s ‘set of contested signs and practices that are historically and socially situated” (Nagengast 1997: 400) or as a “shared system of values, and symbols” that are passed on from one generation to another. (Stavenhagen 2001:89) It is, for anthropology, “a total way of life”, defining the social boundaries that distinguish one group member from another (Stavenhagen 2001:90). Every individual is born into a culture, and participation in cultural life is considered a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 22 of UDHR (UDHR) also states that cultural rights are indispensible to human dignity.
Therefore, different cultures with result in different moral codes. In that case, people should see matters from many aspects instead of having a general truth as the standard. A second reason why cultural relativism has a more logical way of reasoning is because it teaches us to keep in an open mind. This can be seen from the fact that people should respect and tolerate other’s culture since there is no universal truth that holds for all people. Taken together, these two arguments demonstrate the logical way reasoning of cultural relativism and highlight the advantage of the cultural relativism
Moral relativism comes into play in this debate because it is society that sets the standard as to what is acceptable or not, and morals and norms change over time. If society deems something that was thought of as immoral to be acceptable, and creates legislation protecting individuals within that specific category, or creates legislation that protect them within the human rights codes -- people who fight against those, or even voice their stand, face legal ramifications, based on discrimination. That is why I believe that rights should have limits, in that special interests groups rights shouldn't supersede other people's rights. My position towards homosexual unions is largely related to what the Bible says-- so my religious beliefs.
Relativism Despite the fact that ethical relativism did not turn into a conspicuous subject in rationality or somewhere else until the twentieth century, it has antiquated starting points. In the traditional Greek world, both the student of history Herodotus and the critic Protagoras seemed to underwrite some type of relativism (the recent pulled in the consideration of Plato in the Theaetetus). It ought to likewise be noticed that the antiquated Chinese Daoist scholar Zhuangzi (now and then spelled Chuang-Tzu) set forward a nonobjectivist see that is here and there deciphered as a sort of relativism.
Thesis Statement: Origin of Morality Outline A.Universal Ethics 1.Karl Barth, The Command of God 2.Thomas Aquinas, The Natural Law 3.Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law and Natural Right 4.Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative B.Morality and Practical Reason 1.Practical Reason a.Practical Reason and Practical Reasons C.Evolution of Morality 1.What makes Moral Creatures Moral 2.Explaining the Nature of Moral Judgments F. Answering Questions 1. What is the origin of Morality: Religion or Philosophy? 2. What does religion say about morality?
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.
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.
Relativism is the conception that believes one’s value, behavior, belief and morality have no universal validity; all of them are equally valid and are related to other certain elements. Relativism is often associated with a normative position, usually pertaining to how people ought to regard or behave towards those with whom they morally disagree. (Stanford University, 2008) Cultural relativism is a theory that deals with the diversity among different cultures. It considers that people live in a particular cultural background and enrich their culture through particular communication and innovation within the society; every culture has its own unique developmental processes that are determined by its social environment and natural surroundings.
INTRODUCTION The journal of Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes by Oonagh Reitman discuss about the similarities between two critiques of international human rights by cultural relativists and by feminists. This journal divided into three main focus there are the argument of cultural relativism and disagreement between the feminist. The second discuss about the possibility that they can operate together and the last section will be used cooperative approach to achieve their respective goals. SUMMARY
