Two Points Of Moral Relativism

Philosophy 2200C Taylor Pearl Paper #1 The Cultural Differences Argument for Moral Relativism In this paper I will be discussing the theory of the Cultural Differences Argument for Moral Relativism and also the flaws this theory holds. First I will explain the general idea of Moral Relativism, followed by two examples of cultural differences that are often cited to further explain this theory. After that I will discuss what the Cultural Differences Argument is for Moral Relativism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

The Strength and Vulnerability of Different Moral Views Over centuries of fervent discussion in the moral world, there is still nothing like a consensus on a set of moral views. This essay attempts to outline and critically evaluate two moral views, namely ethical objectivism and cultural relativism. It is crucial to understand that both moral theories cannot be true at the same time as it results in contradictions, contributing to false beliefs. Additionally, it is essential that we discuss these issues with an open-mind so as to gain deeper insights from them. First and foremost, we will be looking at the prominent view of ethical objectivism.

To better explain, moral relativism states that moral judgments are true or false, but “only relative to some particular standpoint

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.

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)

Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist, argues that morality is relative and based on one's culture or society. What could be morally acceptable in one culture is not necessarily acceptable in another culture. She believes that “the most spectacular illustrations of the extent to which normality may be culturally defined are those cultures where an abnormality of our culture is the cornerstone” (134). James Rachels, a philosopher, argues that Benedict’s argument is fallible. The conclusion of her argument does not follow from the premises.

This is the beginning of Bloom’s analysis and the conclusions drawn from it are important stern indictments of American society. While Bloom does create a memorable and condemning critique of American society, some of the conclusions are not strongly connected to moral relativism. Bloom begins by stating that almost all university students he has encountered are moral relativists (Bloom 25). These students are not willing to rank cultural norms, believe that different cultures are equal and above judgment. These students have been conditioned by the liberal democratic education to believe their prepositions are just theirs and are a manifestation of the time and place they

Evaluating the morality within ourselves they evaluate morality on the principle of what is wrong or right. As equally

Ethics and Religion The human views on ethics are greatly influenced by certain beliefs, such as religion or philosophical ideas. Philosophy and religion are similar in this sense; they both are morally influential. However, if a person did not have such views, he/she is still capable of having good morals. Though religion is very impacting in many people’s ethical standings, and a majority of human morality is derived from some belief in religion or supported by philosophical reasoning, it is not the only way a person can be moral.