Write a 900-word argument framed in the context of one of the following philosophical ideas weve have discussed in class (utilitarianism, deontology, social contract theory, Marxism, or moral relativism). (If you use moral relativism to frame your argument, then obviously you will argue in favor of it.) This is not a personal opinion piece. And answer the following questions: What is moral relativism? Is this idea true? Provide an example illustrating what cultural relativism is. Are all values of all societies (historically and culturally) equally valid in their beliefs and practices? Why or why not? If so, were the Nazis moral? Why or why not?Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines
The various views within ethical relativism stem from different opinions on whether ethics are based on culture, careful analysis of the world, or personal opinion.
is often held by anthropologists who want to analyze a culture without bringing in their own biases.
Of course, as any fool can plainly see, (b) is self-contradictory. Just as one can not meaningfully say “My morals are wrong,” so one can not consistently say (b). On the other hand, saying (a) leads the relativist into trouble. If, in say that everyone’s values and beliefs are equally good, then you are committed to claiming that my belief that there are objective truths is right (and my belief that you are wrong is right), and this means that you have to deny your own view.
The moral relativists wrongly respond to our fallibilism, the possibility of alternative valuations and evaluations, and the possibility of changes in our valuational structures. Instead of taking seriously the necessity of our “taking a stand,” their orientation leaves us with —it makes evaluation (and valuation) impossible. The proper response to alternatives, diversity, and change is to take seriously our responsibility to engage in the endeavor of reflective equilibrium as we develop our capacity for narrative understanding responsibly as we continue to write our moral autobiographies.
If there is a moral disagreement, the relativist and the subjectivist cannot resolve the dispute by stating that each person's view is correct for that person.
Situation SensitivityMost if not all ethicists recognize that ethical principles are relative inone sense, namely that they are situation-sensitive.
Rather we should strive for a rational yet relativisticethic which emphasizes the exercise of cultivated moral judgement rather thanthe rote application of extant moral rules.
Thus "Don'tlie" is short for "Don't lie unless one must do so to avert greatmoral harm," or even more vaguely, "Don't lie, other things beingequal." These "complete" principles are presumably general (i.e.,relatively context-free) and exceptionless (applicable to all cases).Thus,although the principles are absolute, what they prescribe varies, depending onthe relevant features of the case.
It can also be used in a way of showing that something is true to a particular degree when it is being compared with other things (Cambridge Advanced Dictionary) There are different types of relativism and can be grouped or categorized into different stages namely: Moral, Cultural Just to mention but a few....
That,Brandt says, is the deleterious essence of relativism.This textbook explanation of the situation relativity of moral rules iscorrect as far as it goes.
They propose a theory known as Moral Relativism, which holds that “moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other” (Dreier, p.1); no absolute moral fact exists independently of those standards....
Relativism about morality has come to play an increasingly important role in contemporary culture. To many thoughtful people, and especially to those who are unwilling to derive their morality from a religion, it appears unavoidable. Where would absolute facts about right and wrong come from, they reason, if there is no supreme being to decree them? We should reject moral absolutes, even as we keep our moral convictions, allowing that there can be right and wrong relative to this or that moral code, but no right and wrong per se. (See, for example, Stanley Fish’s 2001 op-ed, “.”)
Cultural Relativism (sociological relativism): the descriptive view that different groups of people have different moral standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong.
In the simultaneity case, Einstein showed that while the world does not contain simultaneity as such, it does contain its relativistic cousin — simultaneity relative to a frame of reference — a property that plays something like the same sort of role as classical simultaneity did in our theory of the world.