Arguments Against Cultural Relativism

Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.

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.

It is simply the nature of our existence. So why should we waste our time forcing our ideals and morals onto others? Everyone is entitled to living how they want to, and yet people try to show everyone that their ideas are superior. For an existentialist, it is not only a foolish choice to create an opening for conflict, but also a complete waste of what little time we have. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a good example of what this sort of thing causes in the end.

This provides an adequate definition of what a benevolent person is. She then continues “This, then, seems to be the way in which seeing states of affairs in which people are happy as good states of affairs really is an essential part of morality” (48), arguing that it must be part of morality to try to have people happy. She then draws an important distinction between having benevolence as an essential part of morality, and having it as the end of morality. “But it is very important that we have found this end within morality, and forming part of it, not standing outside it as the ‘good state of affairs’ by which moral action in general is to be judged.” (48). She goes on to explain that other virtues can supersede benevolence, which provides proof that benevolence is not the ultimate end.

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.

In order to promote human flourishing, I’d choose kindness as the most ideal universal value. Considering the fact that avoiding acts of violence which include theft, fighting, etc. fall under the ideology of being a ‘good person’, that would be considered a faultless personality. A non-violent person, along with being nice, patient and honest all gather together to assemble an exemplary

According to Galen Strawson, moral responsibility to punish some of us with eternal torment (hell) and rewards others with eternal bliss (heaven). I am going to argue that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions which is also Strawson’s argument. He has a basic argument that claims you perform the action that you perform because of the way you are, in particular mental respects. To be truly morally responsible for your action, you must be truly morally responsible for your character, personality, and motivational structure or in other words, who you are. We are born with determined predispositions that we are not responsible for and we are exposed to certain influences that we are not responsible for.

They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated. The Idealists hold that the realists fail to accept the role of morality in

You shouldn’t ridicule a person based on looks, they can be role models for others and just simply treat others the way you would want to be treated. Everyone should be accepted for who they are. Paul stated, “People with disabilities want to be recognized for their abilities, not their disabilities. Some individuals prefer the term “differently abled” rather than disabled” (Burtner). They just wanted to be treated just like you and me and be recognized for what they can do, instead of what they can’t.

A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all