She says that “judging one’s own culture requires the ability to judge other cultures". If we cannot judge other cultures, then we cannot judge our own. This would lead to an inability to judge anything of moral signiﬁcance whatsoever, which is extremely absurd. Moral judgement is a necessary part of existence, and therefore moral isolationism cannot be correct.
One of the first Ethical Dilemmas presented in the book is what are the morals of the people in Maycomb. It is clear that Maycomb has differences in how people act, but that is different on what their moral values are. Moral values are relating to the principles of right conduct or what a person sees as right and wrong. So it is basically what people think is right and wrong. This strongly influences the decisions that they take, considering that a person will do something if it seems wrong.
How do I Make Moral choices, in a World of Moral Ambiguity? A desire for meaning would also include obtaining some kind of “identity,” or individualism. Yet, society or someone will try to force their “ideal” moral system onto everyone else. “Thinking may be “good for nothing” in the world, but in the mind it is good for guidance—not legislation, but guidance” (Bruehl 193). If you base your moral standards off everyone else’s, even when in truth you think in a different way, then in the eyes of an existentialist, you have been degraded and reduced to an object.
This pervasive attitude results in a narrow-minded perspective on what it means to be human. This contributes to a regulatory state and controlling authoritative figures. The end result of this is a stagnated society, which is intolerant of the free expression of one’s individuality and ultimately limits the advancement of society. Blind acceptance of traditions and strict social conformity can lead to the
Rosaldo goes on to the criticize the way that the anthropologists tried to understand cultural aspects objectively, as many aspects of culture require one to be a part of the culture to understand it. I feel like Rosaldo was bald even to criticize anthropologists understandings. This idea of understanding a culture to be futile, as cultures are subjective, and only those within it will understand my perspective. Rosaldo writes: “My inability to conceive the force of anger in grief led me to seek out another level of analysis that could provide a deeper explanation for older Men’s desire to headhunt” (Rosaldo). This shows that there was just a complete inability to understand, and opens up a real idea of personal thoughts.
Until recently cultures have developed independently with their own history, beliefs, and subcultures intrinsic of their specific moral principles. Once individuals and or groups are taken out of their cultural norm and placed into another significant difference between the two would generate disparages and miss interpretations of intrinsic values of each culture. As interactions between the two cultures occurs disagreements would emerge during an exchange of services and perceived normal day to day activities as each culture has produced different valid moral principles. In order to strive, the subculture that has been placed into an unfamiliar environment would have to accept and obey the majority’s laws and policies. Individuals in the minority would be in a dilemma between deciding what cultural laws and traditions to follow to be
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.
In “A Refutation of Moral Relativism,” Peter Kreeft argues that there are no moral absolutes because of the different cultures. Kreeft presents the moral relativism argument in his first two premises, through modus tollens, that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree and that not everyone agrees. The conclusion that follows is that moral absolutism is false. Although many cultures practice different moral values, it does not mean that there is no absolute morally correct value. Kreeft argues in the first premise that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree.
In the text, The Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, it questions Jonathan Bennett’s morality and sympathy and how the two of them can come into conflict. Morality and sympathy are connected, but still very different. Throughout this chapter, Jonathan Bennett outlines many important points and factors that go into these connections and how they can overlap and conflict. Jonathan Bennett says morality can be “bad1.” This type of morality is one that Bennett strongly disagrees with, no so much that one’s morality is actually proven to be bad or even untrue. Sympathy is different than morality in a myriad of ways.
In the article family spokesperson Najee Ali states “Everyone 's afraid of standing up for what 's morally right...People are afraid to hold people morally responsible.” This statement rings both true and false, it is not always true and at times should not even be considered as a factor because judging a person morals is a slippery slope that could lead to a culture of pretentiousness and falsehoods. At the same time what Ali is stating is something that rings true for many people and organizations, who should use their voices to stand up for what is morally right and show where their values lay. Schools should not be a judge of morals or deny people for that reason alone, David Cash did not break any laws but he did have one created because of his actions, so his morals do come into question as it should in cases like this. But that should not be the standard nor should it be a defining factor in acceptance to schools but it should be one