Ethical Relativism

Introduction

Ethical relativism is the stance that there are no moral codifications. no moral wrongs or right. Right or incorrect is based on societal imposts. Ethical relativism implies that people’s ethical motives are dynamic. topic to times and environment. Ethical relativism accommodates and enables the presence of many different civilizations and patterns. It offers people the freedom to accommodate and pattern their socialized moralss and civilizations. This means that there is no inactive civilization or moralss. Ethical motives are dependent on the society penchants. engineering. logic. emotions. experience and regulations among other factors. Morality is really critical since it holds the society together. The principle of this paper is to explicate the consequence of ethical relativism on the morality bond that brings the society together.

In moralss. the impression that nil is objectively incorrect or right and that the definition of right or incorrect relies on the bing perceptual experience of civilization. an single or history. The being of morality is non comparative to individualism. Thus some of the relativists’ statements are invalid. Ethical relativism is a baffling theory since there are assorted differences within civilizations. People’s penchants may non for all clip be ethically right picks. Thus what is culturally acceptable might non ever be morally right. Ethical relativism by definition is a premiss that maintains that there are no by and large accepted ethical codifications. Ethical relativism is normally affected the dissension between right and incorrect due to societal and personal ethical relativism every bit good as the natural jurisprudence premiss ( Lukes. 2008 ) .

Personal ethical relativism holds that different people have diverse moral beliefs. Social ethical relativism holds that different societies have distinguishable codification of moralss. On the other manus. the natural jurisprudence presumes that there is a general set of moral values that opposes ethical relativism. nevertheless it is defective. Ruth Benedict believes that ethical motives are defined by civilization. Benedict besides proposes that normal is a discrepancy of the construct of good. Harmonizing to Benedict. behaviour will depend on what the general civilization that is accepted by the society. On contrary. Christina Hoff Sommers proposes that there are some human qualities that are non comparative to put. clip. state of affairs or circumstance. Ruth and Sommers have different propositions on moralss. Descriptive ethical relativism provinces that ethical beliefs and judgements are the looks of the moral attitudes and mentality of single individuals ( Lukes. 2008 ) .

I faintly agree with Christina Sommers since people have their ain personal set of moral values. For illustration. an person may belief that it is morally incorrect to hold sex on the first day of the month. Another individual might non hold any issue with sex in any context. Person else might non believe in sex before matrimony. or possibly non at all. In order to judge these positions as right or incorrect. moral criterions are really important. However. there is no general set of ethical codifications which can be used to judge the positions. This illustration proves differences in ethical virtuousnesss between people and hence signifies ethical relativism. There are defects in ethical relativism because it does non intend that everyone accept to a impression merely because one group in the society find a given action to be acceptable. What is publically acceptable is extensively variable. If moral criterions do non travel beyond societal rules. no action would be regarded as right or incorrect ( Arrington. 1983 ) .

I wholly agree with Benedict that regulations of the society service as a criterion. Ethical relativism considers how other civilizations tolerate other civilizations. Ethical relativism brings societies together because it allows for great discrepancy in respect of what is seen as good or bad. Ethical relativism elaborates how one action can be regarded as correct in one civilization. but incorrect in the other ( “Ethical Relativism” . 2014 ) . All basicss of the civilization are put into consideration when finding whether an action is incorrect or right. Ethical relativism confuses the reforms to be carried out sing what is being done presently. Peoples are forced to digest some actions that might be intolerable if there are no socially accepted wonts. I disagree with Sommers since human behaviours depend on the clip. topographic point. state of affairs or circumstance. Morality. ethical criterions and the place of incorrect or right are based on civilization and hence topic to single penchants. Social establishments are really critical since they are richly endowed with imposts. norms and mode of thought. Appropriate direction of the school-community civilization will guarantee that it will act upon the immature kids in the society based on the attitudes and temperaments they get at school. Though moral relativism have been widely criticized for being baneful. incoherent and sophomoric. but it is a plausible philosophy and it has important influence on how people live. interact and form the society ( Lukes. 2008 ) .

Ethical motives fluctuate across topographic point and clip. Children learn values when they are turning. even before they can ground expeditiously. Moral relativism is linked to emotional attitudes since values are acquired through emotional conditioning. Peoples decide the place of an action by analyzing their feelings. Emotions are really necessary in doing moral judgements. Ethical motives and morality form personality. The capacity to find whether a pattern is right or immoral develops from life and the environment that people are exposed to. Society and household are the first exposure where moral system is created. Benedict view societal establishments as communities with common virtuousnesss and patterns that have become sophisticated forms of patterns and thoughts. Benedict statements uncover how diverse civilizations employ different moral rules in an enterprise to last as a civilization. Benedict is more right in her analysis sing the differences among civilizations. There are some characteristics of civilizations that are non based on any cosmopolitan moral criterions. There is no general regulation that moral civilizations must stay to a given codification to last. and that the civilizations that do non follow a codification are non moral ( “Ethical Relativism” . 2014 ) .

Benedict provinces that morality differs in all societies and is a suited term for socially accepted wonts. Oppositions of ethical relativism argue that. if ethical relativism is right. there can be no general building for deciding ethical difference or for recognizing understanding on ethical issues among affiliates of different societies. Many ethicians oppose ethical relativism since they argue that although moral patterns in the community differ. the values underlying those actions remain unchanged. Societies might divert in their application of the simple moral political orientations. but they agree on the rules. It can be argued that some ethical beliefs are culturally comparative whereas others are non. Some patterns such as imposts refering dressing manner may depend on local traditions. while other patterns such as political repression or bondage might be determined by general ethical criterions and judged incorrect regardless the assorted other differences that persist among civilizations ( Arrington. 1983 ) .

The impression that some cultural patterns are comparative does non intend that all moral patterns are comparative. Ethical relativism may besides be criticized on the footing of its consequence to personal ethical values. It may be argued that if ethical motives wholly depend on societal norms. it follows that if a certain society believes in racial patterns. its members must acknowledge to racism as morally right. Members of a given community have different sentiments sing a given pattern. Ethical relativism believes that civilization is the criterion to analyze whether a pattern is right or incorrect. Ethical relativism might be criticized. but it helps people to admit that communities have different moral values and that these beliefs are capable to civilization. Ethical relativism besides encourage people to research grounds as to why communities have differing beliefs. and besides challenge people to size up their grounds for the beliefs and values they support. Benedict’s statement about how morality is comparative is sound. Benedict uses an illustration of Kwakiutl society sing slaying. Kwakiutl pattern of slaying is unbearable in the modern society. but it was acceptable in Kwakiutl. Kwakiutl can non be judged for their Acts of the Apostless because they that was a societal norm when one of their relations died. Today such pattern would be regarded as slaying and is improper and a offense that is perfectly penalized by the society and the jurisprudence ( “Ethical Relativism” . 2014 ) .

Benedict concludes that “moral relativism is the right position of moral principles” which imply that right or incorrect is determined by civilization and environmental events. For case people might accept capital penalty and oppose abortion. Capital penalty is regarded as incorrect and therefore punished with decease. On contrary. opposing abortion is like denying adult females their freedom of their organic structure. Harmonizing to Benedict. regardless of the effects behind an abortion. if the society opposes it implies that abortion is morally incorrect hence it will keep the truth worth of moral relativism. The impression that abortion is incorrect is due to the fact that people’s behaviours are shaped by their history. civilization and environment. Therefore the right worth of their moralss relies on what is more rational to societal constructions. On the other manus if people believe that capital penalty is a manner of achieving justness. they will see it morally right. Ethical motives are shared amongst people and the community. and it is seen as a normalcy status of ethical motives ( Lukes. 2008 ) .

In decision. I agree with Benedict statement of ethical relativism where she holds that people change their sentiments and rules depending on the bulk regulation. I agree that ethical motives vary with clip. civilization and environment. However. I do non hold that any pattern is morally right or incorrect depending on the bulk. Benedict adds that the construct of the normal is accurately a discrepancy of the impression of good. Behaviors will depend on the cultural norms. Ethical relativism allows a broad assortment of patterns and civilizations. It will enable people to accommodate morally as engineering. civilization and cognition alteration in society. This is an first-class and a type of relativism. Ethical relativism faces the challenge because people find it difficult to accommodate to new ethical motives. new thoughts and their ain civilization. The word is progressively going culturally diverse therefore doing people find it difficult to accept something different. Culture is a criterion for measuring the place of a pattern. whether it is right or incorrect.

Mentions

Arrington. R. L. ( 1983 ) . A Defense Of Ethical Relativism. Metaphilosophy. 14 ( 3-4 ) . 225-239.

Ethical Relativism. ( n. d. ) . CARM. Retrieved September 22. 2014. from hypertext transfer protocol: //carm. org/ethical-relativism

Lukes. S. ( 2008 ) . Moral relativism. New York: Picador.

Beginning papers