Moral Relativism Essay

At first glance, honorable relativism appears to be an appealing, well though out philosophical view. The truth of deterrent example judgments is relative to the judging subject or community. The basic commentary of moral relativism is that all moral proposes of view ar equally valid no single persons morals are any more than right or wrong than any separate persons. As you look closer at the points that moral relativists use to justify their claims, you can patently see that in that jimmy are, more often than non, viable objections that can be made against the moral relativists arguments. Moral, or honorable, relativism is made up of two types of relativism cultural and individual relativism. cultural relativism narrates that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to a nuance, to a way of life that is practiced by a whole assort of populate.Individual relativism says that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to the preferences of an individual. Cultur al and individual relativism support the claim that there are no familiar moral truths in the world. Universal moral truths are morals that hope to all societies and cultures. I believe that morality is relative to culture simply since our morals develop from the surround in which we are raised. Our parents, culture and societal experiences build our individual views on what is moral and immoral. Perceptions are create through example, especially when we are children as we learn what is right and wrong through our parents and how they react to situations.The system behind ethical relativism states that ethical standards are not concrete for all societies and times, simply rather are relative to the standards of individual societies and time periods. I disagree with this possible action because societies should be judged by their moral beliefs on the foundations that time doesnt change what is morally right and wrong and their should be more emphasis base on the individual ri ghts as opposed to respecting the morals of that individuals guild. Allowing us, as a society, to say 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 another(prenominal) cultures is ignorant. There are a set of universal rights all human beings should enjoy no result the location or time period, and those cultures that violate these rights shouldnt be embraced for being diametrical scarce 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 in 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 eat up or maim people if they annoy you. Ethical relativism says that being of a culture where this is not an evaluate practice I cannot say that this is wrong, rather I must respect their culture thereby placing more emphasis on respecting a culture then the rights of the individuals to life no matter how annoying they see to be. In a system where everything is relative there can be no set ethical belief because then no virtuoso is bound by any universal set statute of ethics. Nothing is ever immoral since actions cant be compared to a standard and thus zilch 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 there is no universal standards therefore no action is moral, and frailty versa no action is immoral.Society furbish ups what is moral at a certain point in time. faith is adaptive and can change over time, however it is still dependent upon its culture to deci de whether it is legitimate or not current. For example, in the early twentieth century, pre-marital sex was considered a huge sin and looked heap 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 aside those who stool sex before marriage. It is considered normal as a matter of fact to have several partners before marriage, that is, if you raze out decide to get married (another topic that has missed importance over time). Benedicts also gives an example to further prove her point that morality and or north is culturally 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 share and to help people and do nice things for them. In the United States, these are virtuous qualities. If you are stingy and not helpful you are looked down upon, bu t in this contrasting society, to share and be helpful is so disgraceful that one is ridiculed for possessing those traits 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 contrary culture. History and evolution provide codes of what is accepted in a culture, things much(prenominal) as sorcery, homosexualism, polygamy, male dominance, euthanasia, these things are completely dependent upon its society to define its morality.Within this world that we live on, there is an enormous amount of people. Each of these people belongs to different cultures and societies. both 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 say 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 object lens standard that can be used to judge one societal 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 to the lowest degree within that society.(f) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an location of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures (Pojman). Above are six claims that help explain the notion of Cultural Relativism. In Rachels article, the Eskimos practice infa nticide as well as the killing of elders. The elders are too feeble to dedicate to the group but they still consume precious food, which is scarce. This practice is requirement 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 female infants helps keep the necessary equilibrium for the survival of the group. So, this infanticide and killing of elders does not signal that Eskimos have less compassion for their children, nor less respect for human life it is merely recognition that stumble 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 employmenting views on topics such as abortion, capital punishment and, euthanasia. To some 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 godliness believes that is a sin for individuals to partake 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. Some 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 pubert y, 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 doings 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 form by our inevitable constitution 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 different moral standards, because port is culturally institutionalized.