ETHICS TWO ASS
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Copperbelt University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
100
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by PatsonD
Moral relativism is a philosophical concept that challenges the idea of universal moral truths
and asserts that moral judgments are relative to cultural, historical, or individual perspectives. It
posits that there are no objective moral standards applicable to all people at all times. Moral
Relativism, as a philosophical standpoint, fundamentally questions the idea of universally
applicable moral truths by contending that moral judgments and values are not universally valid
or invalid. Instead, they are intricately linked to various factors such as culture, society,
individual beliefs, and specific situations.
One of the key arguments is that different cultures hold diverse moral values and practices.
What is deemed morally acceptable in one culture may be regarded as immoral in another. For
instance, practices such as polygamy or arranged marriages are morally acceptable in some
cultures but considered unethical in others (Rachels, 2003).
Another compelling argument in support of moral relativism hinges on the idea of Subjectivity.
Moral relativism respects individual autonomy and the right to make moral judgments based on
personal beliefs and values. It argues that individuals have the freedom to define their own
moral codes, provided they do not harm others (Harman, 1975).
Moral relativism also champions the virtues of Tolerance and Diversity within societies. By
recognizing that moral values can vary widely among individuals and cultures, moral relativism
promotes a climate of tolerance and respect for diverse moral viewpoints.
(Wong, 2006).
Moral relativism serves as a valuable tool for avoiding ethnocentrism, the inclination to judge
other cultures solely through one's own cultural lens. This ethnocentric bias can result in
prejudice and discrimination. By acknowledging the validity of diverse moral frameworks, moral
relativism promotes a more empathetic and culturally sensitive approach to understanding and
engaging with different societies (Pojman, 2009).
Additionally, moral relativism emphasizes its capacity to adapt and evolve moral norms as
societies undergo changes over time. It recognizes that moral values are not fixed but can shif
and adjust in response to evolving societal dynamics and needs. Wong (1984) elaborates on this
concept in "Moral pluralism," highlighting the flexibility of moral perspectives and their ability to
accommodate changing circumstances (Wong, 1984).
Moral relativism is a nuanced philosophical framework that acknowledges the diversity and
subjectivity of moral values, recognizing their variation across different situations and
individuals. Within this philosophical realm, various forms of moral relativism emerge, each
offering a unique perspective on the essence of morality and its connection to cultural,
individual, and societal influences.
One notable strand of moral relativism is Cultural Relativism, which posits that moral values are
rooted in the culture in which an individual is raised. According to this viewpoint, the
determination of what is morally right or wrong depends on the specific cultural norms and
customs of a particular society. Cultural relativists contend that there exists no universal moral
truth that transcends these cultural boundaries, advocating instead for moral judgments to be
contextually assessed within their cultural milieu (Wong, 2006). While cultural relativism
promotes respect for cultural diversity, it also raises concerns about the potential justification of
cultural practices that may violate human rights under the umbrella of cultural relativism.
Individual Relativism represents an extreme form of moral subjectivity. It contends that morality
is entirely subjective, allowing each individual to establish their own moral principles. According
to this perspective, there exist no objective moral truths or external moral benchmarks. Right
and wrong are solely matters of personal opinion and individual choice. Although individual
relativism underscores personal autonomy and freedom in moral decision-making, it can lead to
an extreme version of moral relativism, where any moral standpoint, regardless of its potential
harm or offensiveness, is considered legitimate (Pojman, 2009).
Normative relativism asserts that moral judgments should be made relative to specific cultural
or societal norms. It does not necessarily claim that all moral beliefs are equally valid but
emphasizes the importance of respecting cultural diversity.
Societal relativism, as a perspective, shifs the focus from individuals to the collective,
suggesting that moral values are shaped by the majority opinion or consensus within a society.
It acknowledges the influence of social norms and cultural values on morality, implying that
what is deemed morally acceptable is influenced by prevailing attitudes and beliefs within a
specific society. While societal relativism underscores the impact of social dynamics on moral
standards, it also raises concerns about the potential for societal consensus to result in morally
unjust outcomes.
Descriptive relativism, on the other hand, takes an observational stance. It doesn't dictate what
is right or wrong but rather observes the existence of varying moral codes across cultures
without making normative judgments about their validity or appropriateness. Descriptive
relativism acknowledges the diversity of moral perspectives without taking a position on their
moral correctness (Rachels, 2003).
Lastly, Meta-ethical relativism delves into the nature of moral language and the possibility of
objective moral meaning. This viewpoint explores the linguistic and philosophical dimensions of
moral discourse, questioning whether moral statements can possess objective meaning or if
they merely express individual or cultural attitudes and emotions.
Moral relativism, as a philosophical standpoint, has the potential to both enhance and challenge
community unity. On the positive side, it can contribute to community cohesion by promoting
respect for differences and inclusivity (Rachels, 2003). However, excessive adherence to moral
relativism might present challenges to community unity by potentially undermining shared
values and complicating the establishment of common goals and ethical boundaries.
One of the significant advantages of moral relativism in terms of community unity is its ability to
foster respect for differences. In diverse societies, where individuals hold a wide range of moral
perspectives influenced by their cultural, religious, or personal backgrounds, moral relativism
encourages people to value and recognize these differences. This appreciation for diverse moral
viewpoints can act as a unifying factor, reducing conflicts and misunderstandings arising from
moral disagreements. Communities that embrace this aspect of moral relativism are more likely
to create an environment where individuals feel respected and accepted for their unique
perspectives, thus contributing positively to community cohesion (Pojman, 2009).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Furthermore, moral relativism can enhance community inclusivity. By acknowledging that moral
values are context-dependent rather than universally fixed, communities can become more
accommodating to individuals with varying values. This inclusivity is crucial for nurturing a sense
of belonging among all community members, regardless of their moral beliefs. It enables the
integration of diverse voices and perspectives, potentially enriching community life and
strengthening social bonds.
However, there are significant challenges associated with moral relativism when it comes to
community unity. One notable concern is the potential lack of common values. If moral
relativism is taken to extremes, where all moral judgments are considered equally valid, it may
lead to a fragmentation of values within a community. Without shared values or principles to
guide moral decisions, establishing common goals and norms that can unite community
members becomes increasingly difficult (Rachels, 2003). This can result in a sense of moral
disorientation, making it challenging to address collective issues or make decisions that benefit
the entire community.
Another challenge arises from the difficulty of setting ethical boundaries within a morally
relativistic framework. Communities typically rely on shared moral standards to define
acceptable behavior and address actions that harm others. When moral relativism prevails,
determining what is ethically acceptable becomes complex, as there are no universally agreed-
upon standards. Communities may struggle to address ethical transgressions or harmful
behaviors, potentially leading to a breakdown in social order and cohesion (Wong, 2006).
References:
1. Rachels, J. (2003). "The challenge of cultural relativism." In The elements of moral philosophy.
2. Harman, G. (1975). "Moral relativism." The Philosophical Review, 84(3), 316-334.
3. Wong, D. B. (2006). Natural moralities: A defense of pluralistic relativism.
4. Pojman, L. P. (2009). "Who's to judge? Moral relativism and absolute moral judgments."
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(1), 3-22.
5. Wong, D. B. (1984). "Moral pluralism." Philosophy East and West, 34(3), 319-332.