James Rachel's Argument Of Morality Is Not Relative

1070 Words5 Pages

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. Although cultures throughout the world are distinct from one another, along with their own unique customs, there are set moral rules that every culture follows which plays a big role, in order for society to continue forward. Cultures are very different as described by James Rachels in “Morality Is Not Relative”. Cultural Relativism means that there are no set moral codes due to the fact that distinct cultures have distinct ideas when it comes to morals. For example, Rachel's supports his argument, by using multiple ways different people lived. Rachel’s points out a rarely discussed situation about Eskimos practicing infanticide. Rachel's brings up the point of Eskimo mothers frequently killing their female newborns after birth, without any emotion affecting the action. That goes to say that Eskimos are a nomadic …show more content…

This is shown in “A Defense of Ethical Relativism” where Ruth Benedict gives examples of different circumstances. However, as shown in the example of the eskimo female newborns and male eskimos those who believe in Cultural Relativism seem to get morals, and cultural distinctions confused. These tribal people have different ways of dealing with their relatives, one being no right than the

Show More
Open Document