Ethical relativism tells us that there is no objective right or wrong. That is, whether an action is right or wrong rely on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. Ethical relativism is the theory that fill that morality is relative to the standards of one 's culture. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For ethical there are no universally accepted ethical standard that can be applied to everyone at same times.
The only standards against the practices of a company that may be considered are his. There can be no common framework to resolve moral disputes or to reach agreement on ethical issues among members of different companies. Moral relativism is attractive to many philosophers and sociologists, because it seems to offer the best explanation of the variability of moral belief. It also offers a plausible way to explain how ethics is part of the world as described by modern science. Although the natural world is ultimately composed of nothing, say the relativistic ethics always has a basis in human feelings.
Internal criticisms of functionalism Robert Merton (1910-2003), an influential functionalist, criticises Parsons’ views, suggesting that Parsons assumes that everything is indispensable when in practice there is a wide range of possible alternatives. Merton also disagrees with Parsons when he assumes that all parts of society are integrated as a whole, and each part has a knock-on effect. Merton argues that it is difficult to see the connection between some parts of society. He would also disagree that there is a ‘universal functionalism’ where everything performs positive roles, arguing that some things are dysfunctional for other parts. The assumption that society is always smooth running is untrue and he also adds that there are differences between the manifest and latent functions.
Philosophy 2200C Taylor Pearl Paper #1 The Cultural Differences Argument for Moral Relativism In this paper I will be discussing the theory of the Cultural Differences Argument for Moral Relativism and also the flaws this theory holds. First I will explain the general idea of Moral Relativism, followed by two examples of cultural differences that are often cited to further explain this theory. After that I will discuss what the Cultural Differences Argument is for Moral Relativism. Next I will describe the logical flaw with the theory of CDA, followed by one example that, with using the same logic that CDA uses, will show this theory as misleading. Finally I will make clear if the logical defect of CDA proves if the theory is false or not.
Contemporary virtue theories do not grasp nor represents the Aristotelian theory, because they think that it is impossible to escape the charge of relativism in virtue ethics. According to the relativist approach, ethical goodness is relative to each society depending on its traditions and practices. It is thought that virtue can only be outlined locally with reference to a single locale. Relativists reject the idea that there is a general rule, based on specific virtuous actions, that leads to the good life i.e. they reject that there is a single virtue (or norm of flourishing life) that is able to flourish the life of all human beings.
Cultural relativism has a variety of definitions, but the main idea is that a universal code of ethics does not exist--it varies culture to culture. Rachel’s examines cultural relativism in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” and argues that there are commonalities of ethics throughout every culture. Rachels sections off his argument to better explain what they believe. In this piece, they argue that cultural relativism is not a proper theory. They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it.
Such thinking appeals to our rationality and can be found in every major world religion most typically summarized in ‘The Golden Rule’ – treat other people as you want to be treated. Since the golden rule does not actually specify what we should do, this vagueness of the golden rule points to the reciprocity of considering people. For example, it would also not make sense for me to criticize someone else for, say, breaking the speed limit if I then went and broke it myself, for Kant, it is a sure sign of its subjectivism, it does not indicate the essence or the content of morality, therefore its inadequacy as a foundation of moral philosophy. In this thesis, I will explicate CI2 expresses Kant’s genuinely universal moral system requires that I do not break speed limit, not because of the psychological concerning or consequences, but I treat others as humanity or ends, not merely means. (See my further discussion in
It plainly suggests that egoism means that no person shall bend another to his or her will; that no one has the right to do so. We must discern the delicate contrast between an egoist and an egotist. The egotists would adopt Rand’s philosophy as a tool for their own shortcomings, to forgo the rule of communal synergy. "Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right" (Shawn E. Klein, Community and American Individualism.
Because of this, communities are able to distinguish its members as individuals through each person’s thoughts and actions. Likewise, everything is contentious; perception is so special in that there is no “right” or “wrong” way to perceive people or certain situations like in the epic, Beowulf. Because of this, the line between good and evil is a very subjective. It’s impossible to characterize a person based off of their actions because there is no true, universal definition of good or bad. Everything relies upon the
When I think about ethics I think about whether something is moral or corrupt. We all have our specific set of ethics that we ought to follow, and we cognize right from wrong. So, to say that Tim’s ethic beliefs are wrong would be completely improper and immoral because I, personally, do not know just how Tim defines himself. I believe it is wholly up to each individual to set and abide by ethics however they so choose. There is no collective law of ethics that the world exists by therefore, there is no correct or incorrect answer in ethics.