Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Essay I

Relativism: The Tangible Theory

Since the beginning of rational idea, philosophers have searched for

the true significance of morality. Many theoreticians have attempted to reply this inquiry with

logical thinking, in an effort to happen a cosmopolitan set of regulations, or a manner to separate right

from incorrect. Some theoreticians believe that this inquiry is best answered by a individual lesson

criterion, while others debate if there can be a individual solution. Cultural Relativism

explores the thought that there can be no one moral criterion that applies to everyone at any

given clip. The Kantian theory, on the other manus, states that a cosmopolitan sense of responsibility,

would most profit world. I believe that the Cultural Relativist theory takes into

consideration the different civilizations that make up the population as a whole. The thought of

cosmopolitan truth in moralss, is a myth. The imposts of different societies are all that

exist. These imposts can non be & # 8216 ; rectify & # 8217 ; or & # 8216 ; incorrect & # 8217 ; for that implies there

is an independent criterion of right and incorrect by which they may be judged. In today & # 8217 ; s

planetary community people are interacting more and we are now detecting, more so of all time,

how diverse civilizations and people truly are. For these grounds the Cultural Relativist

theory best defines what morality is, and where it came from.

Today all over the universe people are pass oning in ways ne’er before

imagined. Cultural Relativism believes that one set of ethical motives will non adequately adapt to

the individualism of all the civilizations and subcultures in the universe. What this means is

that there is no 1 moral jurisprudence that fits every state of affairs at every clip. There will ever

be exclusions to the regulations. Cultural Relativism leaves the creative activity of moral and ethical

criterions to the community. The community so makes moral judgements based on its particular

civilization, history, and individualism. For these grounds Cultural Relativism helps the

community, by allowing the community set its ain moral criterions, instead than enforce a set

of ethical motives, as the absolutists would propose. Enforcing a set of cosmopolitan ethical motives would non

be able to counterbalance for all the different cultural differences that exist today. If a

cosmopolitan moral jurisprudence were to be created, what standards would be considered? Would one usage

each communities & # 8217 ; s faith, imposts, Torahs, educational criterions, or civilization? It would be

impossible to take into consideration all of the different factors unique to each

community when making a cosmopolitan moral truth. That is why Cultural Relativism is the

best solution for moral criterions, each community considers all their ain factors of

civilization, faith, instruction, etc. and so make their ain set of ethical motives based on their

demands.

There are many different state of affairss in mundane life that call upon our

moral judgement.

With all of the people in the universe and all of the different state of affairss, who is to state

that there is one set criterion that we should follow on the social degree, every bit good as the

single? Cultural Relativism, challenges the ordinary belief in the catholicity of

moral truth. It says, in consequence, that there is no such thing as cosmopolitan truth in moralss ;

there are merely the assorted cultural and personal codifications, and nil more. Furthermore, our

ain codification has no particular position ; it is simply one among many. One clear illustration of this is

illustrated in the intervention of adult females in some states, against the manner they are treated

in the United States. In the United States adult females are privileged with the same rights as

work forces, hence making, by jurisprudence, an equal society. However in some Middle Eastern

states adult females are non allowed to demo their faces in public, ain land, or may be forced

to be merely one married woman to a adult male with many married womans. The inquiries philosophers ask in this

state of affairs is, “ Which one of these civilizations is morally right in their intervention of

adult females? ” Harmonizing to absolutists there would be one cosmopolitan solution. And, in this

instance, there is clearly no such solution. If you were to back up the United States & # 8217 ;

intervention of adult females, you would hold to travel against many of the Middle Eastern beliefs and

moral criterions. Another manner of looking at it would be from the adult female & # 8217 ; s position. In

the United States the adult female is given freedom and the ability to take, whereas in the

Middle Eastern civilization she has no rights. Is that civilization morally correct for the adult female?

There are merely excessively many variables to take into consideration when seeking to do moral

determinations for all civilizations to follow. If we were to utilize a fit criterion we would hold to

justice people and their civilization. And who is to state that one civilization and its people are

right, and that the other is incorrect? In ancient Egypt people were allowed to get married their

brothers and sisters. In most of today & # 8217 ; s civilizations that is morally and ethically incorrect.

The logical thinking behind this alteration in matrimony manners consequences from

scientific research. Scientists have found that over clip inbreeding causes a higher rate

of birth defects among the progeny. This fact has influenced many of the

& # 8216 ; developed & # 8217 ; civilizations to criminalize inbreeding. Does this mean that the Egyptians were

morally incorrect because they did non hold the scientific cognition about inbreeding that we

hold today? utilitarians would hold us believe yes. They would province that the lone moral

manner to hold acted, would be to non inbreed due to the fact that it causes injury, therefore

sadness, to the progeny. If this is true, how are we certain that we are non morally

incorrect in what we do, if in five or ten old ages into the future scientific discipline discovers that wha

T

we consider morally right now is harming us physically? This is where the beauty of

Relativism comes into focal point. Relativism would state that neither civilization is right, or incorrect.

Relativism would province that each civilization would make up one’s mind, on an single footing, what it

would see morally and ethically right. Our modern society is full of diverseness among

civilizations. There are no set regulations and ethical motives that we can follow because of that really fact.

Peoples are different, and to judge them by any other criterions than their ain is morally

and ethically incorrect in itself. Relativism warns us, rather justly, about the danger of

presuming that all our penchants are based on some absolute rational criterion. They are

non. Many ( but non all ) of our patterns are simply peculiar to our society and our ain

personal penchant, and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. These are the grounds that

I believe that Relativism best answers the inquiry, is at that place a fit criterion of ethical motives and

moralss for all to populate by, or does each community, civilization and single create its ain?

Now that I have touched on more of a Cultural Relativistic position, I

would now like to use the same theory to an person. I believe persons have the

same sort of freedom to plan their moral truths in a manner that suits them, separate from

their community. Thus, merely because a society sets a criterion of ethical motives, there is nil

forbiding an person from rolling from that criterion, besides the society

capablenesss of implementing those moral truths. Assume for a minute there is a community,

that enforces all of its moral truths with the decease punishment. When one is make up one’s minding to travel

against those truths, or non, he would merely hold to cipher the hazard of acquiring caught.

Therefore, the old stating “ you can make what of all time you want, every bit long as you can acquire away with

it ” , would be accurate.

A common point that is brought up against Relativism, when applied to

the person, is the point that harmonizing to Relativism it is incorrect to state that one

moral truth is right or incorrect, because each civilization and person are allowed to do up

their ain truths. Then how can a society penalize a individual for non following their moral

criterions? I would answer as follows. Moralities differ in each society, functioning a

functional intent that is alone to the factors that comprise the country. The differences

of all facets of life are considered when ethical motives are being produced. Society values are

developed in order to guarantee prosperity, stableness and harmoniousness ; when the values are

threatened, so is the good of the society. In order to keep societal balance, all

members are forced to conform to these values. Those who choose to disobey social axioms

are banished or ostracized from the community. Social codes benefit the person, excessively,

they are non constructed merely for the benefit of the society as a whole. The reckless

behaviour of the Nonconformist could be unsafe to an single & # 8217 ; s good being. Therefore,

these ethical motives, are for the good of all. However, if a member of the society can interrupt these

moral codifications and do so successfully, there is nil in one & # 8217 ; s personal moral codification itself

incorrect with making so, except the society instilled guilt that is learned and taught through

the coevalss. And that is precisely it, because ethical motives are created by the community, and

there are no cosmopolitan truths, so if you have adequate people non following the moral

truths of their community, so the ethical motives for that community will alter consequently.

That is what Cultural relativism is based on, the community being able to alter their set

of ethical motives, how else would that go on if it does non get down from the single degree.

From the illustrations shown in this paper, Cultural and Individual

Relativism clearly is the more logical pick as the theory that best provides a feasible

solution to the inquiry of what controls moralss and morality. While absolutists try to

prove that there is one individual set of moral regulations that can be used as a guideline in the

proof of moral and ethical criterions for the civilizations and persons of the universe.

The Utilitarians are seeking to make a greater felicity for all involved in the

community. And the Kantians are looking for their cosmopolitan sense of responsibility. However they

all can be questioned with this individual statement, “ if anyone, no affair who, were

given the chance of taking from amongst all the states of the universe the set of

beliefs which he thought brought the most good and felicity, he would necessarily, after

careful considerations of their comparative virtues, choose that of his ain state. Everyone

without exclusion believes his ain native imposts, and the faith he was brought up in,

to be the best. ” And this discredits the possibility that one such individual can come up

with a set of ethical motives, or a true manner to cipher those ethical motives, because in fact everyone is

biased to his or her ain moral beliefs. Absolutism is evidently non a executable solution

due to the fact that the civilizations of the universe are excessively radically diverse to of all time be able

to be classified under one set of moral and ethical guidelines. I believe the Utilitarian

thought of maximising the good of the whole is besides non executable, on history of everyone non

holding on what makes them the most happy. The Kantinisen sense of responsibility is discredited in

the same manner, on history of everyone & # 8217 ; s sense of responsibility being different. Although there will

ne’er be a moral or ethical theory that clearly includes wholly civilizations as morally right,

the Relativist theory is by far the most reasonable solution offered to us at this clip.

318