Conclusion Moral objectivism is the idea that moral standards are capable of being applied universally around the world. There are many challenges to this theory stripping it of its validity. However, Shafer-Landau and other philosophers provide evidence to some exceptions still allowing moral objectivity to stand and be valid.
Moral Relativism, should it be abandoned or not? This was the original question that came to my mind when starting off reading this excerpt. Mary Midgley, the author of this story, mentioned that now days we as people deny that we will ever be able to understand a culture that is not our own. That got me thinking and as I was thinking I found what she said to be relatively true. I feel as if society has shaped us as young adults to judge our culture as being the best and all other cultures as coming up second best.
Our moral beliefs indicate the kind of environment or culture we grew up in. Therefore, if we were born in Somalia, we would believe that it is morally right to go through female circumcision as a rite of passage. However, if we grew up in the western world, then we would not believe in female circumcision. We can therefore see the relativist 's argument of cultural relativism in this case, because if cultural relativism exists, then naturally, morality will also be relative. Additionally, to support his stance, the relativist will also argue that tolerance comes into play when it comes to cultural relativism.
In the discussion of moral objectivism and moral relativism, it is important to understand the difference, and the impact that a moral system has on the criminal justice community. The community exists to enforce the laws. Moral judgments are made with votes, and the decisions on how laws are crafted are made by elected officials. For this reason, it makes sense for the criminal justice community to separate themselves professionally from their own moral views. Moral Relativism is the view of morality, much like beauty, is relative to the person, culture, or organization.
The relativist’s objection Aristotle’s writings are the best prototype of virtue ethics. Contemporary virtue theories do not grasp nor represents the Aristotelian theory, because they think that it is impossible to escape the charge of relativism in virtue ethics. According to the relativist approach, ethical goodness is relative to each society depending on its traditions and practices. It is thought that virtue can only be outlined locally with reference to a single locale. Relativists reject the idea that there is a general rule, based on specific virtuous actions, that leads to the good life i.e. they reject that there is a single virtue (or norm of flourishing life) that is able to flourish the life of all human beings.
The ethics of cultural relativism are different than traditional ethical theories mainly because cultural relativism dismisses morality. Cultural relativism is named so because the ethics of different cultures
The act of incest is seen as revolting and immoral by many people within the United States, thus contributing to its status as a criminal offense, but in “Vice is Nice But Incest is Best: The Problem of a Moral Taboo”, Vera Bergelson argues that this form of criminalization should not exist within our society. Within Maine specifically, a relationship is defined as incestuous if two individuals who engage in sex are related to each other within two degrees of consanguinity (Maine Criminal Code). According to Bergelson, prohibiting a relationship of this kind is unjust because this law pertaining to incest has “no legitimate grounds for criminalization”. Whether the reason for the criminalization of incest be because of religious tradition,
”(p.19) This shows that in the study of ethics, the study of moral relativism to be more specific, the idea of universal truth does not exist. That is to say what is perceived as “good” or “right” can vary form culture to culture, so there is no way to have one universal truth. Two major examples of cultural differences that are often cited in Support
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.
Normative ethics is crucial in decision-making in the criminal justice system and it is based on the notion that one should act morally using reason to determine the suitable way of conduct of self. Ethical relativism is part of normative ethics and it argues that what is morally right or wrong varies in a great deal from one person to another. The standards of conduct and methods of doing things differ from one society to another and there can never be a single standard of conduct for all societies; we must make ethical decisions therefore based on each situation. Relativism requires that we judge an individual who acted immorally by the standards of his culture and not our own (Cook, 1999). It is effective in just
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.
Moral theories are theories that help us distinguish between a right or a wrong action. Adequate moral theories help us understand that what we should or shouldn’t do in certain situations. Two of the most famous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. According to Utilitarianism, an action is right if only if it out of all the other action gives out the maximum utility. In oppose to that, Kantianism says that an action is right if and only if, in performing that action, the person does not treat anyone as a mean and treats everyone as an end in itself.
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.
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.
(Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group. 2. A moral claim is true, relative to a culture’s moral code, if and only if the claim is generally accepted within that cultural
