According to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." (Schumacher, Robin). Such a philosophy, known as moral relativism, is the belief that there is no absolute truth or morality; it has been growing in Western society since the time of the ancient Greeks. Since then, it has become a ubiquitous philosophy, in both the secular world and Christian communities. Philosophy professor Emrys Westacott defines moral relativism as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others." This principle poses many problems. …show more content…
Firstly, people are drawn towards sin, and therefore towards ideas that permit sin. Moral relativism teaches that there is no right or wrong, only what is acceptable for the individual. This allows people to do whatever they "feel" is right, rather than adhere to moral and ethical standards. Secondly relativism is often endorsed because it simply sounds nice; saying everybody 's culture, religion, and beliefs are equal seems to be a kind and accepting way of life. On the surface, relativism allows people from various backgrounds from disagreeing on serious issues. In actuality, however, this is impossible. Thirdly, societal pressure often draws people towards an acceptance of moral relativism. Modern society ridicules those who oppose relativism; instead of encouraging individuals hold firm to their beliefs, society called moral objectivists bigots, backward, and close-minded. Young adolescents, especially, are susceptible to societal pressures. With constant media influence, lack of proper guidance, and fear of ostracization, young people grow up knowing nothing but moral …show more content…
Starting with the Ancient Greeks, moral relativism has become one of Western culture 's most prominent ideologies. Instead of seeing through the crumbly façade of relativism, both secular and Christian cultures have fully endorsed this philosophy. We see moral relativism in almost all areas of life, from magazines to movies to our Sunday morning sermons. However, we as Christians are called to "[s]ee to it that no one takes [us] captive by philosophy and empty deceit..." And this includes moral relativism (Colossians
Religion is important for a society to function. Sociologist focus on religion as an institution or system followed by a group, based on what they interpret is sacred to this group. Furthermore, depicts the reasoning on how southerners in America have established their conservative values. These values will determine the foundation of southern culture past from generations to their roles in society. Conservatism in the south, has revolved around the significance of religion, leading to the resistance to innovation in society but can be solved through changing societal norms.
We are entileed to believe what we want , aganist the law 1st amendment. 7. Relativism is the highest stage of cognitive development college students can achieve. Maybe for some college stutents. But real as it gets when it actually happen , nothing cognitive.
Our moral beliefs indicate the kind of environment or culture we grew up in. Therefore, if we were born in Somalia, we would believe that it is morally right to go through female circumcision as a rite of passage. However, if we grew up in the western world, then we would not believe in female circumcision. We can therefore see the relativist 's argument of cultural relativism in this case, because if cultural relativism exists, then naturally, morality will also be relative. Additionally, to support his stance, the relativist will also argue that tolerance comes into play when it comes to cultural relativism.
Therefore, cultural relativism is imperfect. Gensler’s argument against cultural relativism is flawed because although moral views are inconsistent, local standards still determine even the most basic moral principles, so hurting others would be appropriate if the community approved of it. This flaw is damaging to Gensler’s argument because cultural relativism claims that anything that is socially approved must be good, and clearly a number of things would not be considered moral by most people. Hobbes’ Argument for Leaving the State of Nature (Hobbes, pp. 105)
Do you agree or disagree with conventional ethical relativism that there are no objective moral principles, but that all valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance? Explain your answer and why you agree or disagree. I agree with conventional ethical relativism that there are no objective moral principles other than justified by the virtue of cultural acceptance. In regard to the dependency thesis as it relates to conventional ethical relativism, right or wrong acts of individuals depend on the nature of the society that molds them. Until recently cultures have developed independently with their own history, beliefs, and subcultures intrinsic of their specific moral principles.
The only argument for relativists is their tolerance for everyone, but even this is a weak argument. The raising generation, is known for toleration, it is a worldview. Toleration can be good, we can understand and see other cultures, but if we are to tolerant then we lose our worldview and what we believe because we adapt other cultures. This is the reason people believe culture relativism, every culture is different and we don 't always have believe what other cultures
This is evidence that moral values are universal and relative to an individual. Ethical objectivism has an aspect of universality of moral values and rules whereas ethical relativism confines moral values to the individuals and the
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.
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. 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.
To better explain, moral relativism states that moral judgments are true or false, but “only relative to some particular standpoint
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
Every society has its own unique cultures in which people will have different ideas of moral codes. The diversity of these cultures cannot be said to be correct or incorrect. Every society has independent standards of ethic within their society and these standards are culture-bound. Cultural Relativism has a perception in which rightness or wrongness of an action depends entirely within the bounds of the culture. This theory opposes the belief in the objectivity of moral truth.
In other words, “right” or “wrong” are culture specific, what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality that exist, no one has the right to judge another societies custom (Ess, 2009). Cultural Relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What makes up right and wrong is determined solely by individual or the society (Ess, 2009). Since the truth is not object, there can be no standards which applies to all cultures.
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.”
I do not fully agree with relativism. Individuals or culture should not decide what is okay. In some countries such as China and India female