Moral Relativism Essay

At first glance, honourable relativism appears to be an appealing, intimately though out philosophical entrance. The truth of incorrupt judgments is proportional to the calculatement subject or community. The basic definition of moral relativism is that all moral pull push downs of view atomic number 18 equally valid no overstepgle psyches morals argon any more right or part than any opposite persons. As you look hand-to-hand at the points that moral relativists use to justify their claims, you can plainly assume back that thither ar, more often than not, viable objections that can be make against the moral relativists arguments. Moral, or h one(a)st, relativism is made up of two types of relativism ethnic and private relativism. pagan relativism find out ups that right and wrong, good and evil, argon relative to a nuance, to a way of keep that is practiced by a hale group of tidy sum.Individual relativism feel outs that right and wrong, good and evil, be relative to the preferences of an idiosyncratic. Cultural and individual relativism support the claim that at that place are no common moral truths in the world. Universal moral truths are morals that leave to all societies and cultures. I believe that morality is relative to culture only transgressionce our morals develop from the surroundings in which we are raised. Our parents, culture and social experiences build our individual views on what is moral and immoral. Perceptions are formed with lesson, especially when we are children as we learn what is right and wrong by substance of our parents and how they react to situations.The theory behind ethical relativism states that ethical standards are not concrete for all societies and ages, but quite are relative to the standards of individual societies and time periods. I disagree with this theory because societies should be judged by their moral beliefs on the foundations that time doesnt change what is virtuously ri ght and wrong and their should be more dialect based on the individual rights as opposed to respecting the morals of that individuals order of magnitude. Allowing us, as a society, to place that a time or a location makes any ethical belief or theory practiced by the masses of that time/place right and that should be respected by people of other cultures is ignorant. on that point are a set of common rights all gentleman beings should enjoy no way out the location or time period, and those cultures that violate these rights shouldnt be embraced for being contrary but rather shunned upon for not recognizing the universal basic rights of the individual, despite the fact that it is hard to say what are ALL of these basic human rights. Ethical relativism places more emphasis on the society and not enough on the individual of that society.For example lets say that in some imaginary culture it is perfectly normal to garbage down or maim people if they annoy you. Ethical relativism says that being of a culture where this is not an accepted practice I cannot say that this is wrong, rather I must respect their culture in that respectby placing more emphasis on respecting a culture thus the rights of the individuals to life no affair how annoying they happen to be. In a system where anything is relative in that location can be no set ethical belief because then no one is bound by any universal set code of ethics. Nothing is ever immoral since actions cant be compared to a standard and thus nothing is immoral and nothing is moral. Societies should be judged by their moral beliefs because time and place doesnt change what is morally right and wrong and more emphasis should be given to the individual rather than to the society. Ethical relativism contradicts the point of ethical theory in that on that point is no universal standards therefore no action is moral, and vice versa no action is immoral.Society defines what is moral at a certain point in time. Mora lity is adaptive and can change over time, stock-still it is still dependent upon its culture to decide whether it is accepted or not accepted. For example, in the early twentieth century, pre-marital sex was considered a huge sin and looked down upon with disgrace. A persons entire character was jeopardized if they had participated in pre-marital sex. Today however, although pre-marital sex is not considered virtuous, society does not cast digression those who arrest sex before marriage. It is considered normal as a matter of fact to have several partners before marriage, that is, if you even decide to bestow married (another topic that has lost importance over time). Benedicts also gives an example to further prove her point that morality and or normality is paganly relative.She gives the example of a man in a Melanesian society who was referred to as silly and simple and definitely crazy because he liked to make do and to help people and do nice things for them. In the Unite d States, these are virtuous qualities. If you are stingy and not helpful you are looked down upon, but in this contrasting society, to share and be helpful is so disgraceful that one is guyd for possessing those singularitys or even condemned for them. One who believes that morality is relative could give further example of traits that are despised in one culture but admired in a antithetic culture. story and evolution provide codes of what is accepted in a culture, things such as sorcery, homosexuality, polygamy, male dominance, euthanasia, these things are completely dependent upon its society to define its morality. at heart this world that we live on, there is an enormous amount of people. Each of these people belongs to different cultures and societies. Every society has traits and customs that make it unique. These societies follow different moral codes. This means that they may have different answers to the moral questions asked by our own society. What I am trying to s ay is that every society has a different way of analyzing and dealing with lifes events, because of their cultural beliefs. This claim is known as Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the correct view of ethics. (a) Different societies have different moral codes. (b) There is no heading standard that can be used to judge one social code better than another. (c) The moral code of our own society has no special status it is merely one among many. (d) There is no universal truth in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times (e) The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.(f) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures (Pojman). above are six claims that help explain the n otion of Cultural Relativism. In Rachels article, the Eskimos practice infanticide as well as the killing of elders. The elders are too feeble to contribute to the group but they still realize precious food, which is scarce. This practice is necessary for the survival of the group. The males within the Eskimo tribes have a higher mortality rate because they are the hunters and food providers. The killing of effeminate infants helps keep the necessary equilibrium for the survival of the group. So, this infanticide and killing of elders does not note that Eskimos have less compassion for their children, nor less respect for human life it is merely recognition that murder is sometimes needed to ensure that the Eskimos do not become culturally extinct (Pojman).To continue with the subject of murder, there are many questions about murder that our own society faces. within our own society there are conflicting views on topics such as abortion, capital punishment and, euthanasia. To so me these acts are considered to be murder, to others they are necessary to our society. The point of this conflict is that even within our own society, there is a discrepancy between what is morally right or wrong. There is an exception to every so-called moral absolute. This eliminates the possibility of Moral Absolutism, and proves there is no universal truth (Pojman).Ruth states that homosexuals deal with many conflicts that are culturally based (Pojman). For example, in our western society, the Catholic religion believes that is a sin for individuals to par force back in homosexual activity.By this I mean, the tendency toward this trait of homosexuality in our culture exposes these individuals to all the conflicts that coincide with this choice of lifestyle. just about of these conflicts include hate groups that partake in gay bashing, public ridicule and even laws against homosexuals taking wedding vows. This differs from what Ruth explains about how in American Indian tribes there exists the institution of the berdache (Pojman). These are men who, after puberty, take up the dress and occupations of women and even marry other men. These individuals are considered to be good healers and leaders in womens groups. In other words, they are socially placed and not ridiculed by other members of their society.This is an example of how different societies have different moral codes. Ruth states within her article how every society integrates itself with a chosen basis and disregards itself with behavior deemed uncongenial (Pojman). This means societies will choose their own moral standards and ethical codes and, disregard actions that do not lie within the boundaries of these moral standards and ethical codes. She goes on to say that our moral codes are not formed by our inevitable war paint of human nature. We recognize that morality differs in every society. Our own culture and environment will dictate these codes. This explains why different people have diff erent moral standards, because behavior is culturally institutionalized.