As modern day people, we allow our environment to impact the way we make decisions, how we speak to people, and how we resolve conflicts. The influence of outside pressures from society, moral obligation, and physical disabilities does not allow many individuals to pursue their dreams. In Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton the tragic story of a farmer and the unfortunate events that led up to his current life. This is then used to reveal the conflict of societal standards that challenge Ethan’s personal desires and keep him from pursuing his dreams.
In today's society, people try everything to do what is right, but although they do their best to be moral, they may still
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.
We hardly see people say or think is this the right thing to do, we tend to see people do things out of there own free will not thinking if it’s the right thing of wrong thing to do. In certain situations, the differences between right and wrong is clear in all problems we face. Some may be hard to figure out but in reality there is always going to be one solution better than the other. We sometimes think about our options in the short term instead of the long run, so some options might seem better in the end but in reality we might have made a
Do you agree or disagree with conventional ethical relativism that there are no objective moral principles, but that all valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance? Explain your answer and why you agree or disagree. I agree with conventional ethical relativism that there are no objective moral principles other than justified by the virtue of cultural acceptance. In regard to the dependency thesis as it relates to conventional ethical relativism, right or wrong acts of individuals depend on the nature of the society that molds them. Until recently cultures have developed independently with their own history, beliefs, and subcultures intrinsic of their specific moral principles.
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.
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.
This is because of moral relativism’s take on ethical dilemmas, and the view that there are a number of disagreements among people as to the nature of morality. An act can
The divine command theory states that the deeds that are good and evil only because the almighty god himself commands it. This was the one single notion that kept most people away from committing the so-called ‘sins’, because it delivers an answer to the disturbing instances of moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. This was trumped by Plato’s Euthyphro argument in which Socrates inquires ‘Is something right because the god commands it, does god command it because it’s right?’ This argument’s moral allegations imply that the bond between ethical behavior and religion might not be as simple as previously thought.
”(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
“Just because it’s what’s done, doesn’t mean it’s what should be done.” This quote didn’t come from a philosopher or a politician. It came from Disney’s new version of Cinderella. Cinderella said this to the man she would later learn is the prince. She was upset because the prince was going to kill the stag during a hunt because it’s just what’s done.
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.
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.
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.”
As human beings, we generally follow a thinking pattern that first involves developing our own opinions, then relating those opinions to the opinions of others. We often do this subconsciously; conscientious of what others believe, how they define certain actions, traits, and morals, and how their view towards what is just and unjust relates to our own. This fundamental thought process is the foundation of the philosophy of relativism. To the common person, the term relativism encompasses a philosophy that states that what is right and what is wrong is defined based on context, and situation.
