Summary: A Defense Of Ethical Relativism

A Defense of Ethical Relativism

Benedict views morality as something that depends on the different\ histories and environments of different cultures. Yes, I believe she is correct stating that our culture is “but one entry in a long series of possible adjustments”. Why? Because what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in a different society, but each individual society is correct. She asserts morals are culturally defined based on what’s considered the appropriate behavior in each society.

To determine aspects start with a list of criteria it would be good to evaluate. The questions will be categorized into descriptive or perspective. It might get more of one than another. Some aspects can't be separated. "Better"

It asserts that actions are determined as immoral or moral based on how society perceives and accepts those actions, which causes tolerance of all actions to be considered moral and accepted by society. In addition, it allows for tolerance of genocide and nuclear war as long as the culture considers these actions as morally acceptable. Ethical relativism entails the inter-cultural tolerance. Subjective Ethical Relativism (Subjectivism), is where right and wrong get their meaning from the individual only. As many students sometimes maintain, "Morality is in the eye of the beholder." We treat morality like taste or aesthetic judgments person relative. This form of moral subjectivism has the sorry consequence that it makes morality a very useless concept, for, on its premises, little or no interpersonal criticism or judgment is logically

He is certain that what he did it’s just because in his head he truly thought that only way he could truly become free, truly unfettered, he had to become truly uninhibited and that’s what lead him to rape and murder it victims. He didn’t gain any remorse of what he did, in the contrary he said that to him that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure he might take in eating ham, and the pleasure he anticipated in raping and murdering his victims. Even if moral judgments are subjective, it does not follow that they are not rational or practical. The reasoning behind the moral value it only suffices if you choose to accept that reasoning. Moral subjectivism does not entail a lack of adherence to moral law. It only changes the reasons for adhering to moral law, and how an individual views moral judgments, i.e., opinion rather than truth. An individual who lives in a given society has an obligation to live by the law of the land. This is Gewirth's golden rule: "Agents must act in accord with the generic rights of others as well as their own." If an individual infringes upon their social contract, they are liable to be brought to task for their transgressions. Moral subjectivism does not exhaust moral