Category: Ethical Relativism

Moral relativism claims that morality is not based on any absolute standard. According to moral relativism, ethical truth is more likely to come from situations, cultures, and sensations. The source of moral universalism is considered human nature, particularly the susceptibility of a person, the ability to empathize, and the resulting need for argumentation for persuasion. The two moral concepts are opposed, but moral universalism seems to be more truthful.

Several arguments can be made concerning moral relativism that reflect a dubious nature. Firstly, while many of the arguments that insist on supporting relativism may seem compelling, they all have a logical contradiction in that they all return the correct moral schema that all people should follow, which constitutes moral universalism. Secondly, relativists may argue that different cultures have different values and that morality is relative to different people. However, these arguments explain peoples actions in terms of absolute standards, so it converges back to moral universalism.

Moral universalism presupposes the existence of an ethical system that effectively regulates the behavior of members of any community, regardless of culture, race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing features. The simplest justification for this point of view is the obvious observation that in all known moral codes that have proven their viability, there is a common core: respect for life, health, property, and personal dignity. Moral universalism seems to be the more truthful theory. Firstly, moral relativism is built on exceptions, not on general rules. All people approach morality from human nature, which explains approximately the same moral and ethical codes of all countries and peoples. Moral norms are considered basic everywhere, for example, the prohibition of murder. Secondly, if everyone had their own morality and ethics, as moral relativism suggests, it would be impossible to regulate human relations.

Introduction

The process of making moral decisions relies on diverse principles. Different societies use different moral principles including moral absolutism and moral relativism to guide decision-making. Furthermore, some societies use the integration of the two moral principles to make decisions at the community level. There are diverse moral principles that are applicable in decision making. However, this paper argues that American society should employ moral relativism in making moral decisions at the community level. The discussions are supported by experiential anthropological study findings presented by Ruth Benedict.

Moral Relativism and Its Application

The principle of moral relativism and its application in moral decision-making suggests that universally lawful moral principle is nonexistent. The moral correctness and wrongness of decisions vary from one culture to another. Arguably, no absolute universal moral principles binding on all societies. The system of thinking in any society about ethical standards is always relative (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyer, 2013). Notably, every society creates primary principles that serve as the basis for morality. The principle of moral relativism maintains that the establishment of moral standards that apply to their situation has remained the same.

According to Benedict (1934), morality is dependent on diverse histories and environments of varying cultures. The author used a large amount of data on anthropological studies in diverse cultures to conclude that moral relativism remains the right understanding of ethical principles. The experiential specifics she collected from primitive and modern cultures show great disparities in approaches and moral standards (Benedict, 1934). The high disparities indicate that American society should employ moral relativism in making ethical decisions. The application of a moral principle that has been adopted from other regions cannot function among Americans.

The experiential anthropological findings made by Benedict from her educational surveillance in diverse cultures reveal the inapplicability of outside moral principles in American communities. It is notable that, while the American society has embraced homosexuality largely, other cultures still abhor it as a social abnormality (Benedict, 1934). The findings also indicate that no society can make the most of its civilizations complete the probable differences in individual performance.

The American society should use moral relativism because different cultures appreciate their ability to make decisions according to their situations. Society also likes to take their preferences to advance levels and largely promote own moral principles (Velasquez et al., 2013). Therefore, the society can reject decisions, which are incompatible to their moral standards and preferences. The significance of moral relativism within the American society about decision-making remains crucial. The moral principle offers the American populace population to draw attention to issues of moral differences within varying cultures to establish their viewpoint (Velasquez et al., 2013).

The principle sustains debates about different state of morals in diverse cultures during varying historical periods. Americans also ought to apply moral relativism because crucial discussions on moral disagreements normally emerge during different periods. The notable discussions about abortion in America show the significance of moral relativism because people who have varied moral standards can have the opportunity to share their opinions (Gowans, 2012).

Conclusion

The application of moral principles in decision-making remains highly different depending on cultural settings. There are notable differences between moral absolute principle and moral relativism standard and their application in making ethical decisions. Moral relativism suggests that there are no universally correct moral standards. The principle notes that moral standards vary from one culture to another or from one person to another. The American society should apply moral relativism in decision making because of their uniqueness in cultural backgrounds and individual opinions.

References

Benedict, R. (1934).A Defense of Ethical Relativism. Web.

Gowans, C. (2012). Moral Relativism: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web.

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. (2013). Ethical Relativism. Web.

Moral relativism claims that morality is not based on any absolute standard. According to moral relativism, ethical truth is more likely to come from situations, cultures, and sensations. The source of moral universalism is considered human nature, particularly the susceptibility of a person, the ability to empathize, and the resulting need for argumentation for persuasion. The two moral concepts are opposed, but moral universalism seems to be more truthful.

Several arguments can be made concerning moral relativism that reflect a dubious nature. Firstly, while many of the arguments that insist on supporting relativism may seem compelling, they all have a logical contradiction in that they all return the correct moral schema that all people should follow, which constitutes moral universalism. Secondly, relativists may argue that different cultures have different values and that morality is relative to different people. However, these arguments explain people’s actions in terms of absolute standards, so it converges back to moral universalism.

Moral universalism presupposes the existence of an ethical system that effectively regulates the behavior of members of any community, regardless of culture, race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing features. The simplest justification for this point of view is the obvious observation that in all known moral codes that have proven their viability, there is a common core: respect for life, health, property, and personal dignity. Moral universalism seems to be the more truthful theory. Firstly, moral relativism is built on exceptions, not on general rules. All people approach morality from human nature, which explains approximately the same moral and ethical codes of all countries and peoples. Moral norms are considered basic everywhere, for example, the prohibition of murder. Secondly, if everyone had their own morality and ethics, as moral relativism suggests, it would be impossible to regulate human relations.

Moral relativism implies denying the existence of absolute good and evil and the objective criterion of morality. In turn, moral absolutism is the opposite of relativism, under which there is only one source of moral norms. Speaking of Canadian sex work laws, it is currently illegal to purchase or advertise sexual services. My opinion on whether or not sex work should be legal involves several factors, namely the perspective from which the issue should be considered.

Primarily, I would like to indicate that, in my opinion, moral relativism is a more appropriate model. It is argued by the fact that under relativism, the situation is considered in context, which is essential because the context can be more significant than the situation itself. Let us suppose that a person has committed a murder and, according to moral absolutism, must be condemned no matter what. However, in the context, it turns out that the person not only protected one’s family but also killed a serial maniac and lived a decent life. In this case, the context reveals facts that indicate that the person should not be condemned as one have potentially saved even more people. And if we consider murder from the side of moral relativism, then the context will be taken into account, which, as one can notice, is of great importance.

Thus, the question of the legalization of sex work, in my opinion, should be considered from the standpoint of moral relativism. That is, one should take into account the context, namely the reasons why one decided on such a job and how it will be implemented. For example, if one needs to earn money in this way for significant reasons, and it happens on a voluntary basis, then it can be legalized. In addition, it is necessary to create suitable conditions for official implementation, namely security and respect for rights.