Free Essays from Bartleby Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures. Relativism is the idea that there are no generally valid or binding moral standards. But this is not the same as the empirical fact that people disagree about moral standards. People could disagree about moral standards even if there were some generally valid moral standards, much as people once disagreed about whether the earth moved round the sun or vice versa, even though there is (and always was) a valid--indeed, true--resolution of this disagreement. What is important is to note that disagreements do not imply that there are no generally valid moral standards. They tell us only that people dont always agree on what the standards are or should be. It is the denial that there are generally valid moral standards. It is not about what people do believe, but about what they should believe. That is to say, relativism cannot be proven or disproven by empirical tests, such as surveys that would show that people do or do not believe in universal moral standards. It is a philosophical claim about the existence of universal moral standards, whether or not people believe in them. And thus it must be proven or disproven by philosophical arguments.
This variety of relativism has become a frequent target in ethics textbooks largely because moral philosophy is about the proper use of the human intellect to resolve genuine. In the remainder of this essay I try to honor the aims of both camps by sketching a conception of relativism as “universalism without the uniformity. The essays will be the main portion of the exam, but there will also be a section of short answers, so please make sure that you are familiar with all the material we covered in class, even that which isn't part of the essays. Please make sure to bring a blue book and your student ID (as you will be putting your ID# and not your name on the exam). Each of these essays is designed to give you the opportunity to demonstrate to me how well you understand the class material. In order to do this, imagine that you are trying to explain the subject to your intelligent, but ignorant, roommate. That is, state things clearly enough, explaining any technical terminology, offering examples where they are needed for illustration, and expanding on any cryptic or compressed remarks, so that a person not already familiar with the material would understand what you mean. By doing this, you'll show me that you understand what you're talking about. However, since time is limited, don't go off into irrelevant areas or offer information that is not needed to answer the question; don't pad. In each of the essays below, I give a number of points that I want you to touch upon.
Outline of Essay I. Introduction. II. Arguments in Favor of Conventional Ethical Relativism. A. Cultural Diversity. B. Avoiding Ethnocentrism. C. Culturally Conditioned Values. D. Lack of Knowledge. III. Arguments Against Conventional Ethical Relativism. A. A Universal Conscience. B. Conflicting Cultures. C. Create Your Own. In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits.
A critique of the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. Moral relativism is 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. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own. Greece, but they remained largely dormant until the 19th and 20th centuries. Relativistic views of morality first found expression in 5th century B. During this time, a number of factors converged to make moral relativism appear plausible. These included a new appreciation of cultural diversity prompted by anthropological discoveries; the declining importance of religion in modernized societies; an increasingly critical attitude toward colonialism and its assumption of moral superiority over the colonized societies; and growing skepticism toward any form of moral objectivism, given the difficulty of proving value judgments the way one proves factual claims. For some, moral relativism, which relativizes the truth of moral claims, follows logically from a broader cognitive relativism that relativizes truth in general. Many moral relativists, however, take the fact-value distinction to be fundamental. A common, albeit negative, reason for embracing moral relativism is simply the perceived untenability of moral objectivism: every attempt to establish a single, objectively valid and universally binding set of moral principles runs up against formidable objections. A more positive argument sometimes advanced in defense of moral relativism is that it promotes tolerance since it encourages us to understand other cultures on their own terms.
Ethical relativism is the thesis that ethical principles or judgments are relative to the individual or culture. When stated so vaguely relativism is embraced by. The term ethics derives from Ancient Greek ἠθικός (ethikos), from ἦθος (ethos), meaning 'habit, custom'. The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of ethics and aesthetics, each concerned with values. Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory. Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual." It can refer to philosophical ethics or moral philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason to answer various kinds of ethical questions. As the English philosopher Bernard Williams writes, attempting to explain moral philosophy: "What makes an inquiry a philosophical one is reflective generality and a style of argument that claims to be rationally persuasive." Ethics can also refer to a common human ability to think about ethical problems that is not particular to philosophy. As bioethicist Larry Churchill has written: "Ethics, understood as the capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values, is a generic human capacity." For example: "Joe has strange ethics." The English word "ethics" is derived from an Ancient Greek word, êthikos, which means "relating to one's character".
Mar 23, 2015. Consequently, the moral difference in these cultures brings about the issue of ethics. Ethical relativism also promotes the belief that morality is, and cannot be universal. Moral relativism is therefore justified by relativist through various examples. For instance, practices regarding clothing and decency. My voluntary role with the World Police & Fire Games started on Friday 2 August. I was placed in the Bangor Aurora Aquatic and Leisure Complex at the swimming event helping theadministrationside with the medals team.
Read this full essay on Ethical Relativism and Cultural Relativism. In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical R. The word ‘absolutism’ does not have an entirely uniform meaning within contemporary moral and political writings. This article outlines three central uses of the term, which may serve as an introduction to the topic. “Absolutism” (or 'moral absolutism') refers, firstly, to a doctrine about the nature of morality (meta-ethics), according to which there are true or justifiable moral principles that have application to everyone, or at least, all moral agents (excluding infants and the mentally impaired for example). In other words, there are moral rules that apply to all people, including those who do not acknowledge these principles but live their lives in accordance with other, false, principles. Moral absolutism in this sense is committed to the existence of universal moral principles and for this reason is sometimes called universalism.
A Defense of Ethical Relativism. RUTH BENEDICT. In this essay she assembles an impressive amount of data from her anthropological research of tribal behavior on an island in northwest Melanesia from which she draws her conclusion that moral relativism is the correct view of moral principles. MODERN SOCIAL. He talks about two moral theories, ethical absolutism and ethical relativism, and presents arguements for and against each. Stace, a philosopher, in contrast to the view of the cultural relativist, "argues that one cannot conclude that all moral actions are relative". He groups ethical absolutists as the right wing, the conservative and the old fashioned, and the ethical relativists as the left wing, the up to date fellows, the revolutionaries. Ethical absolutism is a simple and unwavering theory and that is that, "there is but one eternally true and valid moral code and that it applies with rigid impartiality to all men", and that it is "absolute and unvarying". The ethical absolutist does not proclaim his own moral code as the true or untrue one, nor does he commit to the credibility of his neighbors moral code, nor his ancestors, nor future generations.
C 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Changing moral values in Africa An essay in ethical relativism. EGBEKE AJA. Department of Philosophy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. 1. Introduction. Rapid transportation and the increased economic interdependence of parts of. Africa are bringing. Ethical relativism is supported by the disagreement about what is right and wrong because of personal and social ethical relativism and the natural law theory. Ethical relativism can be defined as a theory that holds that there are no universally accepted moral standards. In other words there is no objective right or wrong. Personal ethical relativism basically says that different people have different moral beliefs. Social ethical relativism says that different societies have different moral beliefs.
Jun 13, 2010. Moral or ethical relativism is the idea that what is considered moral or immoral depends on the accepted behaviors within the society in which the determination is made. Therefore, what is considered moral or ethical in one society may be considered immoral or unethical in another, but each society is. This study will critically compare Ethical Subjectivism and Ethical Relativism. The study will examine the theories as well as examples by which the practical importance of the theories can be more clearly understood. The study will basically argue that both of these approaches to ethics are deeply flawed, but that they each have something important to contribute to the realm of ethics as well. Ethical Subjectivism is defined in terms that can appear almost absurdly simplistic. Mac Niven defines it in the following way: a particular action . Rather we should strive for a rational yet relativistic ethic which emphasizes the exercise of cultivated moral judgement rather than the rote application of extant moral rules. In short, each side harps on the opponent’s weaknesses while overlooking its own flaws. We are not forced to choose between relativism and rationality. There are ways in which ethical principles and behavior vary legitimately from culture to culture and individual to individual. However this in no way suggests we cannot reason about ethics. But in rejecting objectionable features of relativism they overlook significant yet non-pernicious ways in which ethics is relative.
In philosophy, there are certain theories that have been formulated to describe extensively on the ethical virtues that the community upholds. They justify morality and immorality. The theories include; relativism, utilitarianism, divine command theory, deontology and virtue theory. This paper will focus on the five ethic theories. Philosophical Ethics Ethics is that part of philosophy which deals with the good and bad, or right and wrong in human conduct. applies normative theories to moral problems in law, medicine, business, computer science, the environment and more. What is the relationship between self-interest and morality? We can divide philosophical ethics into four parts. Over the next few weeks we will discuss normative ethics, or moral theories. Now you might agree that my previous assault on relativism has been successful, but still claim that while some truths are objective—logical, mathematical, and natural scientific ones for example—other so-called truths are relative—ethical truths for instance. Such considerations lead us to moral relativism, objective truth about right and wrong. Ethical judgments are not true or false because there is no objective moral truth—x is right—for a moral judgment to correspond with. In brief, morality is relative, subjective, and non-universally binding, and disagreements about ethics are like disagreements about what flavor of ice cream is best. And what specifically might morality be relative to? Usually morality is thought to be relative to a group’s or individual’s: beliefs, emotions, opinions, wants, desires, interests, preferences, feelings, etc.
Out of the following essay questions, you will have to write on two either 2 out of three, or 1 each out of two groups of two. Ethical relativism and FGM. What reasons does Ruth Benedict give for thinking that ethics what's right and worng is relative to the standards of a culture, and how would her position apply to the. Cultural relativism is a belief where there are no absolute moral views or beliefs can be apply to all cultures, which makes “right” and “wrong” different in every society; what is considered “right” in one society may be considered “wrong” in another. Since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. If this belief is held true, then every culture will have their own set of “rules” to live by and no one can judge on, even they are doing things that are abnormal in this world, because in that particular group the action will be viewed as perfectly normal. This creates a situation where no person regardless of his or her authority in society can define what is right and wrong. This may lead to chaos and an attitude within people that they will never strive for progression or advancement. Cultural relativism is not a good philosophy to guide the interactions among individuals and cultures because there are some universal rules we must follow, (ex: no murder, no genocide etc). Society’s rules should be created under those moral codes and human should judge on them because there isn’t perfect in any man-made things, but cultural relativism is also needed in society, in order to remind us to keep an open mind on everything. In each society, there has to be some universal rules that exist in order for a society to continue to work.
Ethical relativism essaysEthical relativism is supported by the disagreement about what is right and wrong because of personal and social ethical relativism and the natural law theory. Ethical relativism can be defined as a theory that holds that there are no universally accepted moral standards. Manukyan Ruth Benedict was considered a founding figure of American anthropologist and Benedict taught at Columbia University. She has written many books, many of her books were published, and she is very well known. Benedict views social systems as communities with common beliefs. She believes that one system cannot be better than another. I agree with Benedict’s claim that morality is simply whatever a culture deems normal behavior. It is definitely a satisfactory equation and she shows many great points on why.
Today, it is possible to speak a variety of different approaches to morality and ethics. In this regard, the concept of ethical relativism is particularly noteworthy, especially in the context of the process of globalization, which affects not only economic but also cultural life of the world. In actuality, the ethical relativism and the. David Hume’s views on aesthetic theory and the philosophy of art are to be found in his work on moral theory and in several essays. Although there is a tendency to emphasize the two essays devoted to art, “Of the Standard of Taste” and “Of Tragedy,” his views on art and aesthetic judgment are intimately connected to his moral philosophy and theories of human thought and emotion. His theory of taste and beauty is not entirely original, but his arguments generally display the keen analysis typical of his best work. Hume’s archaic terminology is occasionally an obstacle to appreciating his analysis, inviting conflicting readings of his position. Hume’s aesthetic theory received limited attention until the second half of the Twentieth Century, when interest in the full range of Hume’s thought was enlivened by the gradual recognition of his importance among philosophers writing in English. Unfortunately, many discussions of Hume’s aesthetics concentrate on a single late essay, “Of the Standard of Taste” (1757). This emphasis misrepresents the degree to which Hume’s aesthetic theory is integrated into his philosophical system. This misrepresentation has been countered by recent monographs on Hume’s general aesthetic theory by Dabney Townsend (2001) and Timothy Costelloe (2007).