From the WIKI: Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous. In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths are known as moral absolutism. Where did you stand on the Morality Spectrum? Rocket River
All you have to do is look from culture to culture to realize that morals are very much a relative thing. Hell, in some cases, even state to state... maybe even county to county :grin:
That's true, but as you're looking from culture to culture, you may notice that many of them think their own moral values are absolutely correct and everyone else is wrong. Is one of these groups correct? Or are they all wrong?
I think our sense of right/wrong evolved over time like every other human attribute. I don't think there is necessarily one moral system that is the best. At the same time, I do think there are principles that should be universally adhered to in any decent human society.
There are no morals, only people masquerading religion as a basis for morality when in actuality it is merely a suggestion that most people latch onto because they can't figure it out for themselves.
This. Folks who think religion dictates their morality for them need a serious reality check. If you need religion to tell you what's right and what's wrong, something is wrong with you.
LOL what are the odds. I wrote a paper on this in my philosophy class just a couple of weeks ago. Half assed it but made an A.
Objections To Cultural Relativism According to Rachel’s skeptical argument, unconditional moral standing is a myth. Morality is simply what every individual holds to be true to align themselves with the greater mean. If the general consensus regarding something was “Immoral,” every individual in society would abstain from it for the sole purpose of avoiding social discord. I disagree with this statement because even though many societies throughout the course of history practiced particular customs that would appear strange, deep down at the very core, their beliefs coincide. The reason for it is a similarity that is irrefutable and quite obvious. Differing by less than 1% biologically, they are all humans acting from the same nature which in turn directs their morals. Success, peace, and happiness are goals that are intrinsically beneficial to all of us. Unfortunately, these are difficult achieve and call for making right choices while avoiding bad ones. The choice between right and wrong is clear among the cardinal values, and ambiguous towards the benign ones since room for error is acceptable. For example, judging by my friend’s reaction when I lie or steal from him, it is clear what I must do in order to sustain our friendship. Murder, theft, abuse,…etc, are the cardinal transgressions worthy of punishment and outcry, but to the cultural relativist they call for turning the other cheek and remaining silent. Such practices can be seen among the Eskimos and many tribes throughout Africa. The Eskimos go as far as to kill their own babies if circumstances call for it. Sure there might be a shortage of food, too many kids as it is, or a busy mother, but is it possible to justify the taking of an innocent life, especially one that is as pure and free from sin as a baby? Another extreme example is the frequent rape of women throughout Africa. Women are dragged into public and violated as everyone watches or ignores what is going on just as a cultural relativist would. Many of these rapists are uneducated and believe that raping a virgin is a cure for AIDS, completely oblivious to the truth. The cultural relativist would however keep his mouth shut and view this as an acceptable practice since it is so popular. If the women don’t contract HIV and die early, they are sure to suffer a life riddle with depression and inner tension. You can see how this is such a volatile ideology. By making morals relative, you make truth relative due to association. That is however self contradictory because the truth must be freestanding from all doubt and circumstance to retain its definition. Without something as fundamental as truth in society, there is nothing to build upon. By remaining silent, we have had to learn through experience as millions of people perished during the holocaust. The holocaust was known for quite some time but most nations chose to mind their own business until the problem was in their own backyard. Since the general consensus in Nazi Germany was to wipe out the Jews and other minorities, were those being victimized obligated to relinquish themselves? Their rights were clearly being infringed upon but wouldn’t that be considered morally right to the Relativist? This philosophy claims that we can not be prejudiced towards other cultures, but what when those cultures are acting with prejudice themselves? What sort of logic can support this? Also take for example, slavery in colonial America. Slavery had been the predominant practice among the region for quite some time. Most people favored and practiced it, some felt it was wrong and remained silent, and a few voices of reason abhorred it to the point they chose to take action, and in turn initiated the entire abolitionist movement. It wasn’t until quite some time Lincoln took office and outlawed slavery, but those audacious individuals starting from the ground up and germinated the seeds of a revolution. Discrimination openly continued for quite some time after, but those same individuals in every generation worked towards progressing society as a whole even though they were the minority. The status quo would never change if it was just accepted and never open to any criticism. Societies would be locked in their archaic ideology and continue to uphold principles such as slavery, and gender/race discrimination. The question of how different societies will interact with one another is the final flaw with cultural relativism. At first sight it may appear that staying clear of judging someone else’s culture eliminates any possible animosity or friction, but how can two people with completely different ideologies and standards communicate? Communication between societies is essential for their individual survival. They must trade and form alliances due to limited resources and enemies. Alliances can not be made if the two societies view the same notion in different manners. There is no possible way that the U.S would have accepted an alliance or a treaty with Nazi Germany in which the Jewish people were still exterminated. Order is not possible and chaos is inevitable. An even simpler example illustrating this is how animals of one species communicate and live with animals of the same species, since their natures are identical. A dog can not befriend a python or any other animal. like it would another dog. What each holds acceptable is different from the other, there are no set values to work around and live harmoniously. Humans are no different, they must abide by some universal ideals to be able to live together. I agree that we should learn more about other cultures in order to better understand them, but we can’t free them from all judgment. Doing so is an ignorant practice, leaving it at “That’s what they consider right so it is ok for them.” As human beings we are obligated to speak out against what is right and what is wrong because the other person may not fully understand the extent of what it is that they are doing. Not in anyways the best paper, you can tell as it deteriorates as you go through, but I wrote it the day before it was due
****, the title is supposed to be Moral/Cultural Relativism. Tell me what you guys think also constructive criticism is welcome.
Relativism is silly. There are universal values that can be justified. A native American tribe on the west coast used to practice female genital mutilation as a cultural practice. The US government stepped in and said it was wrong and banned it. Is any rational person honestly going to justify female genital mutilation on cultural grounds? The same can be said for a variety of other practices. Yes ethics is relative but only to a certain point. Anyway I firmly believe that a set of universal human rights exists. It'd just take a lot of thinking and effort that I dont want to do to figure it out.
