Moral Relativism

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By pchula12
Words 569
Pages 3
Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the “view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are either culturally-based or subject to a person’s individual choice” (Klement, 2006). Most people hold to the concept that what is right and what is wrong is not absolute and that morals can be altered from one situation to the next based on these subjective choices.
Individual moral relativism views that what is ethically right is relative to each individual person according to their own moral standards or ethical system (Yount, 2012). To elaborate: if a John Doe believes that stealing office supplies for personal use is ethical, it is; if Jane Doe believes that stealing office supplies for personal use is unethical, it is. Alternatively, cultural relativism views that what is ethically right is relative to one’s culture (Yount, 2012). For example: if Culture 1 believes cannibalism is ethical, it is; if Culture 2 believes cannibalism is unethical, it is. The main advantage of moral relativism is that it can allow people of different cultures or ideologies to co-exist together. However, disadvantages of relativism in morality would result in having no common framework for resolving moral disputes because the fundamental principles governing what acts are morally right or wrong vary from culture to culture or individual to individual (Klement, 2006).
The third level of Kohlberg’s (1971) stages of ethical development asserts that individuals consider the expectations of family, group, or nation to be more “valuable” regardless of any immediate or obvious consequences. The person’s attitude conforms to the expectations of social order mostly because of loyalty to that order and will actively justify, maintain, and support as well as identify with the persons or group involved in this order (Turiel, 1973). Personally, I agree with Kohlberg. I believe…...

Similar Documents

Relativism and Morality

...Relativism and Morality Week 2 Assignment: Relativism and Morality Jody Herrig SOC 120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Prof. Linda Atkinson Monday, February 25, 2013  Relativism and Morality     Relativism is a concept that forges reality advancing assumptions which declare nothing to be absolutely true or valid. This is so because what has been proven true or valid is always based on personal perceptions which may be influenced by various predisposing factors. Often they may be merely subjective sentiments which are not universal since they only represent the view point of a few, the minority, majority or imposition of a dictator (Baghramian, 2004).       When conceptualized within the context of morality it impinges on the framework that truth is applicable only as it pertains to specific guidelines and adaptations. Hence, if morality then becomes as issue in determining truth; it is sieving intentions to decipher purity and whether they are based on justice or outcomes that are beneficial to all.       Therefore, this section of my presentation will focus on Lenn Goodman’s (2010) ‘Some Moral Minima:’ A Perspective. Also, a discussion on whether the conceptual framework advanced by this author challenges relativism will be embraced as well as a personal analysis of the themes. Lenn Goodman- ‘Some Moral Minima:’ A Perspective       Lenn Goodman (2010) as any social scientist has to justify the morals of society. To say......

Words: 269 - Pages: 2

Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivism

...outline, explain and critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of moral relativism. Every choice we make is due to each person’s individual morality and rationality. In this view, Norman (1988: 188) contends that, “Morality is premised on the assumption of individual responsibility.” Morality is concerned with the free choice of rational human beings, and not the non-rational. Louis (2002:28) further adds that morality, “Is just the set of common rules, habbits, and customs that have won social approval over time so that they seem part of things, like facts.” Moral relativism shows that there are no absolute moral rules and each situation needs to be examined individually. Therefore moral relativism is the belief that morality does not relate to any absolute standards of right and wrong but good and bad are dependent on culture and circumstance or judgment paradigm. Thus different moral truths hold for different people from society to society or at different periods in time. The fact that some people see moral relativism as an obvious truth which is undeniable needs no preamble. Needless to mention, others perceive moral relativism as threatening to the moral foundation on which society is founded. According to moral relativists there is nothing that is absolutely, invariably right or wrong, and there is no universal standard by which to measure our character or our actions. According to moral relativism, it is never true to say simply that a certain kind of......

Words: 1601 - Pages: 7

Relativism and Morality

...RUNNING HEAD: RELATIVISM AND MORALITY Relativism and Morality Kaleen Cheney SOC/120 Russell Tompkins February 2, 2013 RUNNING HEAD: RELATIVISM AND MORALITY PAGE 1 In reading the Lenn Goodman Some Moral Minima, I have to agree that certain things are simply wrong. The issues such as genocide, famine, germ warfare, terrorism, hostages, child warriors, slavery, polygamy, and incest are all topics that Goodman discusses that I have to agree that I have the same point of view as. I agree with Goodman because he says that “culture or character do not matter much morally”, but “personal and cultural difference do set a tone”. Relativism is the belief that nothing is ‘wrong’, that each culture has the right to choose their definitions of what is right or wrong. Morals are personal taught behaviors of right and wrong actions and or behaviors. No matter what religion, race, or culture you are from, some things are just simply wrong. Goodman is very good at describing that every person whether it be a man, woman, or child has the rights to live and be free from any and all inhumane treatment. Terrorism, Hostages, and Child Warriors are the first of Goodman’s topics. We hear every day about terrorism and hostages but for me child warriors are a topic that I have kind of forgotten about. Child warriors are something that I personally think is a topic that does not fit with the Moral Minima in my opinion. We agree that certain things are just simply wrong but in...

Words: 1001 - Pages: 5

Difference Between Moral Absolutism and Relativism

...Explain the difference between moral absolutism and relativism (25) There are two different ways in distinguishing whether something is right or wrong within ethics. Absolutism is a deontological theory, which determines whether an action is intrinsically right or wrong. Whereas relativism is a teleological theory, which determines whether an action is right or wrong based on the outcomes of the action, on its consequences, this is linked with situation ethics and consequentialism. They are two different ways in approaching ethics. Absolutism is a moral command that is objectively and universally right or wrong for all people, in all times, places and cultures. It can be said to be deontological and so something is either right or wrong intrinsically (in itself) and therefore consequences have no bearing. Whereas, relativism is a subjective theory and believe that all truth is relative and dependent upon the values of an individual or society or even situation. Relativism is a teleological approach and therefore takes into account the consequences of a situation. Therefore there are many differences between moral absolutism and relativism. An example of absolutism would be the Ten Commandments, that Natural Law portrays, which are absolute, ‘do not murder’, as this is a law that applies to everyone. Therefore an absolutist would say that it is always wrong to murder in every, and any situation. In contrast, a relativist might argue that in some situations, given the......

Words: 656 - Pages: 3

Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, and Moral Relativism

...Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, and Moral Relativism Tom Gardner Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to answer the questions; what’s right? What’s wrong? And why? Moral relativism is an ethics position that essentially states that people have disagreeing moral beliefs and therefore you must but tolerant of other's morals. This position leads to the problematic realization that if this is the case there can be no objective moral truths nor can there be any universal principles. Act utilitarianism and ethical egoism are two different ethics theories that attempt to respond to this challenge of moral relativism in different ways. Ethical egoism attempts to respond to the challenge of moral relativism by justifying that there is a universal principle for what actions are right and what are wrong. It is a form of consequentialism, which means it looks solely at the consequences of action to see if it is right or wrong. The defining sentence of egoism is as follows, “What's good for you is right and what's bad for you is wrong.” This phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways, the most popular one being: every person should act in their own self-interest. This means that when deciding on whether an action is good, any effect on others (mental or physical) by said action has no merit. An egoist that is measuring or justifying an action's goodness is only examining the possible positive or negative effects this action will have on him. The majority of the......

Words: 1382 - Pages: 6

Relativism and Morality

...RELATIVISM AND MORALITY Week 2 Assignment Sarah Knight SOC120: Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility Prof. Thomas Reeder November 4, 2013 Relativism and Morality Moral choices are conducted on a daily basis, by every culture, which can be viewed on an ethical scale of right or wrong, by other cultures. In her writing of “Some Moral Minima”, Lenn E. Goodman views several aspects of morality and relativism, and argues that certain things are just wrong. In presenting my own morals, I agree with this statement; however, pondering the image, that only one accurate ethic exists and that we may be able to find universal moral requirements and arrive at a multiethnic agreement on issues presented by Goodman is a parable. In this paper, I will state my opinion on challenges Goodman presents to relativism. I will also provide my thoughts on if there are such universal moral requirements. In Goodman’s initial area of discussion of “Some Moral Minima; Genocide, Famine, and Germ Warfare (Goodman, L.E., 2010)”, she states “Genocide targets individuals as members of a group, seeking to destroy a race, a culture, a linguistic or ethnic identity (Goodman, L.E., 2010)”. I reflect back to after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were made on The United States. The threat of germ warfare became a very real aspect of war for our nation. Governmental groups, that we were at war against, were considering the decision to use this type of weapon in order to defeat......

Words: 1212 - Pages: 5

Moral Relativism

...Moral relativism Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative that different moral truths hold for different people in different cultural. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad full stop. Those who reject relativism, of course, have arguments of their own: In some cases, it does seem to be right to judge one culture to be morally superior to another, to make cross-cultural comparisons. To make cross-cultural comparisons, though, one needs a cross-cultural standard, which is precisely what moral relativism says there isn’t. Not only does moral relativism entail that we cannot make legitimate moral comparisons of different cultures, it also entails that we cannot make legitimate moral comparisons of a single culture across time; we cannot judge whether a changing society is getting better or worse. Generally, though, we do think that we have made moral progress. Moral relativism, arguably, cannot make sense of this. Moral philosophy Moral philosophy refers to the basic rules or principles that people use to decide what is right or wrong. Although there is no single moral philosophy that every culture, every nation, even every people accepts, there are still some moralities are widely accepted. Such as honest, integrity, and fairness which was......

Words: 267 - Pages: 2

Cultural Relativism

...Cultural Relativism Cultural relativism, or CR, is the view that good and bad are determined by the beliefs of a society, or in other words, moral principles are based upon the culture’s collective norms of what is good and bad. Normality is culturally defined. This implies that morality is a social construct and therefore the moral codes you hold, are a direct reflection of the societies codes in which you live. Further, the morals held by your society are not objective facts, but rather, varied from culture to culture. Neither side is wrong in their belief, despite the fact they are different beliefs. Relativism argues that not passing judgments against cultures allows for a greater sense of cultural appreciation.  We don't lock other cultures in judgments, but rather are tolerant and accepting of them. Cultural relativism teaches us to view other cultures with a nuanced outlook, and to not immediately assume (as many people do) that our own preferences are the absolute best ones. Many (though not all) practices, customs, and beliefs may seem odd or even repulsive, but they’re generally harmless as far as their ethical consequences. From the tolerance and open-mindedness offered by cultural relativism is a chance to learn about other cultures and ways of doing things. Opponents of cultural relativism offer some strong arguments against this theory. First, it doesn’t allow you to question society’s norms. In asking whether slavery was right or wrong, you would merely be......

Words: 591 - Pages: 3

Moral Relativism vs Moral

...Moral relativism vs Moral absolutism Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the insight that there are no obvious ethical truths and that moral facts are only relative to a given individual. According to this theory what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. Moral relativism holds that ethical truths are of this latter kind. According to moral relativism, ethical truths are subjective rather than objective. This means that whether lying is wrong, for example, can vary from person to person or from culture to culture. It may be that for some people, or in some cultures, it is wrong, but that for other people, or in other cultures it isn‘t. In one mild form, moral relativism can seem obvious. Of course different people have different moral obligations: I have a duty to pay my credit card bill; you do not. Each of us is in different circumstances, and those circumstances affect what we ought and ought not to do. Morality is therefore relative to circumstances. Moral truths are relative to people or groups of people. Moral relativism holds that two different people in identical circumstances can, for no other reason than that they are different people, have different obligations. This is a much stronger claim than that morality is relative to circumstances. Moral absolutism Moral absolutism is the ethical theory which believes that there are always absolute rules of which moral questions can be......

Words: 506 - Pages: 3

C.S. Lewis on Moral Relativism

...Lewis’ main objections to moral relativism. C.S. Lewis brings to light several points about relativism that demonstrate its lack of footing. Moral relativism cannot be its own judge of right or wrong. Further, what themselves would call our instincts, cannot provide evidence for guiding us to determine that any side of any issue is right or wrong. The deciding factor must be a set of principles that are entrenched deep within our ability to reason, with built in burdening mechanisms that help us to decide right from wrong, aside from what our true desires may be. These morals just cannot manifest themselves or be made up as we go; they are based upon principles put in place by an outside force as the foundation for life. Additionally, Morals are very similar across cultures. Not to a granular extent, but more on a foundational level in order that we may coexist better with each other. Moral laws speak not in the sense of how a person behaves, but specifically how they should behave. Moral laws do not have properties as other laws do in life. As Lewis puts it: “…when you are dealing with humans, something else comes in above and beyond the actual facts. You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave)”. (2007, p. 25) It is that knowledge of how we should behave that separates a Moral law from any other law, and the fact that the very idea of it is inescapable to us. My position. Morals cannot vary from......

Words: 448 - Pages: 2


...Relativism was the subject of Module 4. Relativism understands ethics in terms of situations and options. What is “right” and ”wrong” in any situation is variable. “Right” is a matter of the person’s personal preference, bias, emotion, experience, culture, gender, age, socioeconomic group, and any other factor the individual deems important. In essence, the individual is his/her own higher power. Entitlement-based ethics or egoism is a special type of relativism. Deontology, the study of duty, which we explored in Modules 3 and 5, describes a variety of positions that understand ethics in terms of duty or obedience to universal principles regardless of the consequences. These universal principles could come from God, from human origins and nature, or from human reason. Instead of asking whether an action will result in a particular type of consequence, either good or bad, as is the case with utilitarianism and social contract, deontologists ask whether an action is consistent with a particular principle or rule. In Module 5, we studied the ethical deontological categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. Kant does not believe the authority for duty-driven activity is God. Kant believes that human will is the highest authority. He believes this “highest authority" emanates from the use of human reason. In short, Perhaps Kant’s “duty” is not as absolute as one might suppose. Human ordained moral action is often subject to change according to personal preference.  For Kant, the...

Words: 391 - Pages: 2

Ethical Relativism

...explain moral principles. It is concerned with the question of right or wrong in human behavior. It explains how men ought to behave and why it is wrong or right to behave in a certain way. Ethics weighs human actions or inactions on a moral scale to determine whether the action is morally good or morally bad. Thomas Hobbes on ethics explained it as the science of “virtue and vice.”1 Morality and ethics cannot be divorced. Morality is the basis of ethics, the latter is the explicit reflection on, and the systematic study of the former (Joseph Omoregbe 1993 p.3)2. How then do we decide what is morally right? Is it based on universal laws or divine instructions? Are laws truly universal? If they are not, how then can the rightness or wrongness of culturally divergent societies be determined? Philosophers agree and disagree in varied proportions on answers to these questions. It is normal if you disagree too. For the purpose of this paper, an attempt will be made to look into the concept of ethical relativism, its importance and areas of deviation from ethical absolutism. History of Ethical Relativism Though moral relativism did not become a prominent topic in philosophy or elsewhere until the twentieth century, it has ancient origins. In the classical Greek world, both the historian Herodotus and the sophist Protagoras appeared to endorse some form of relativism. The early Sophist Greek philosopher Protagoras provides an early philosophical precursor to modern Moral......

Words: 3962 - Pages: 16


...Thought-Piece 2 Relativism, Cultural and Moral People in different cultures, as well as people within a given culture, hold different moral views on particular issues. Some members of our society believe that abortion is immoral, and others believe that it is morally permissible. Thus, it is very important that we distinguish what is often called cultural and moral relativism. Differing views regarding the morality of a given action or practice may be the result of a number of factors. Two societies may basically and ultimately disagree on moral principles, but the disagreement may also be on many other levels. For instance, two societies may adhere to a basic principle: What helps the society flourish is moral and what hinders it is immoral. Differing conditions therefore provide a reason for holding different actions to be moral or immoral. A society’s factual beliefs also affect what it holds to be moral or immoral. Some societies believe what is false. To some extent, this is probably true of all societies. However, most societies are aware that they obtain more and more factual knowledge as they develop and progress in life. Just as a society may be mistaken about the proofs, so it may be mistaken about some of its moral judgements. The saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” has limited applicability. One clearly should observe local etiquette and other such customs in countries other than one’s own. So, when in Rome, one should indeed do as the......

Words: 448 - Pages: 2

Ethical Relativism

...Ethical Relativism 1. Ethical Relativism: In this lecture, we will discuss a moral theory called ethical relativism (sometimes called “cultural relativism”). Ethical Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong is dependent upon what one’s culture believes is right or wrong. In short, if your society or culture BELIEVES that some action is morally wrong, then it IS morally wrong for everyone within that society. Businesspeople often claim something similar. They say, for instance, that businesses operate under their own system of morality. What is deemed to be right by some business IS right for that business. This makes morality relative. For instance, if one society says cannibalism is morally wrong, while another says it is morally permissible, then the fact of whether or not cannibalism is morally wrong will just be a relative one—namely, whether or not it is wrong for someone will just depend upon which society they are in. We will now ask the question: Does some action become right or wrong just because one’s society, or employer, SAYS it is right or wrong? Or rather, is it the case that there are some moral standards that apply to ALL businesses and societies, regardless of whether or not those societies believe in those standards? 2. The Argument From Disagreement: Why believe that morality is relative? Relativists often say that widespread moral disagreement proves that their view is true. They say: 1. Different people have different......

Words: 2510 - Pages: 11


...Relativism: A term underlined by consequence. Abstract Relativism argues that there are no absolute truths. It suggests that the concept of right and wrong in any given human behavior can only be determined by applying its relevance to the culture of the given subject. Culture “A” may believe in and practice female circumcision while culture “B” may unequivocally oppose it. In both cultures, there is a fundamental difference in what they believe to be the truth about this ritual. One person might view it as custom, or a rite, or a sacred practice. Another may view it as a brutal and primitive method of control. It all depends on where you are standing, so with regard to personal, cultural, and ethical beliefs, the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths. However, this does not discredit the notion of universal moral requirements. Absolute truths do exist. They exist because there are consequences to every action, and no matter what context, perception, or point of view one possesses, the concept of action versus consequence is a universal constant. Genocide kills many people. That is not a belief. If you commit genocide, it is absolutely true that people will die. It is a consequence. If we all desired the consequences of genocide then we would all be gone. Fortunately, most of us do not wish to commit genocide, but for those who do, they feel that they have a good enough reason to do so because there is a desired consequence of that......

Words: 870 - Pages: 4