People have been raised from different cultures and value everything differently. The main perceptions of subjective relativism seems to follow this line of reasoning. We all live under constitutional government protected by a firm Bill of Rights and Wrongs. Everyone should have their own freedom to speak out their ethical points of views.The positive contributions of ethical relativism is based on people with similar thought of moral values. I think moral nihilism should be related based on moral relativism as there are no moral truth in the world and by living in peace we need to respect one another’s decisions and cultures and decide on morality based on what the majority think is the correct thing to
Moral Relativism is the view of morality, much like beauty, is relative to the person, culture, or organization. This is because of moral relativism’s take on ethical dilemmas, and the view that there are a number of disagreements among people as to the nature of morality. An act can
Alka Pal Intro to Ethics Instructor- Dr. Mark Journal- 2 (Moral Relativism) February 19, 2018 Ethical Relativism, what is right and wrong in overall opinion among the morality? It differs from religion, cultures, tradition, and societies viewpoint. relativist means belief, idea, proposition, claim, etc. and it’s never good, or bad, true, or false, or right or wrong. At whatever rate, moral relativism might imply that our morals have reformed, that they have changed over time, and that they are not absolute.
J. L. Mackie on his writing “The Subjectivity of Values” develops two main arguments against the objectivity of values. Mackie states, “There are no objective values” (pg.175) where he expresses his belief that there are no objective, absolute or universal moral truths and argues in favor of moral skepticism, the view that people cannot have knowledge about morality. While actions naturally can be perceived as morally good or bad, there is nothing that makes them objectively good or bad. Mackie presents two main arguments to corroborate his critique in morality. The argument from relativity in which he claims there are no objective values and the argument from queerness where objective values would be different from any other thing in the universe (pg.
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.
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.
Finally I will make clear if the logical defect of CDA proves if the theory is false or not. The General idea of Moral Relativism is that the beliefs and/or activities of an individual, society, etc. are to be understood. As written in James Rachels book Elements of Moral Philosophy, he states, “Different societies have different moral codes”(p. 18) and that “if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.”(p.19) This shows that in the study of ethics, the study of moral relativism to be more specific, the idea of universal truth does not exist. That is to say what is perceived as “good” or “right” can vary form culture to culture, so there is no way to have one universal truth.
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.
Virtue ethics, primarily founded by Aristotle, was the dominant approach in Western moral philosophy until Enlightenment .Its importance re-emerged with the dissatisfaction associated with deontology and utilitarianism, two theories unable to address issues such as moral character, moral education, friendship etc. Virtue ethics emphasize moral character and virtues, focusing on three central concepts: virtue, practical wisdom and eudaimonia. Cultural Relativism is the view that holds that moral truths cannot be applied universally, and that each person should be morally assessed based on his culture/society. This paper discusses relativist objection faced by Aristotle, its arguments and the responses offered by Aristotle, in addition to anticipated objections and Nussbaum’s responses in her paper “Non-relative virtues: An Aristotelian Approach” A major objection Aristotle faces is the relativist view connected to virtues. Contemporary virtue theory holds that criteria of ethical goodness are internal and different across societies, and therefore reject the concept of a single norm applied to all human beings.
In Louis Pojman’s “Argument Against Moral Relativism”, he classifies the three premises for ethical relativism. Those of which include the diversity thesis, the dependency thesis and the final result of ethical relativism. Following his explanation of these three ideals, he goes onto explain as to why each one of them are invalid. Of the arguments that he provided, I’d consider his justification against the concept of subjectivism. His main argument against this idea is that if it is true, it makes morality a useless concept.