Moral Relativism - Imposing Universal Ethical Behavior on Different Cultures
Proponents of moral relativism as an ethical theory believe that it is impossible to impose one universal standard of ethical behavior on all cultures. Instead, moral relativists point that different cultures can have varying standards of what is considered ethical behavior. For example, prior to being "discovered" by explorers in the early 20th century, many indigenous tribes (later referred to as "Eskimo") lived in isolation in Alaska, northern Canada, parts of Greenland and northeastern Siberia.
Explorers brought back tales of the practice of infanticide, where mothers routinely killed female babies with no repercussions. Older people were also often left in the snow to die.
Many people condemned these practices, branding the Eskimo as people with no regard for human life. However, a moral relativist would analyze these practices within the cultural and social context of Eskimo life. Life is much more difficult in the frozen north, so babies are killed at childbirth during lean times. Similarly, when a member of society becomes too feeble to contribute, leaving them in the snow is deemed the proper solution. Both practices are deemed proper, as they increase the survival chances of the tribe as a whole. Thus, while another society may cringe at the idea of infanticide and leaving the elderly to die, Eskimo societies see the survival of the tribe as the paramount concern.
There are many examples throughout history illustrating the difficulty of judging other cultures by one's own ethical yardstick. Thus, instead of being preoccupied with questions of whose society is superior, moral relativists believe that all actions should be judged within their cultural context. An action such as infanticide, no matter how abhorrent it may seem, may then be an ethical action in a society that values collective survival over the rights of one individual.
Moral Realism vs. Moral Relativism Philosophers have argued the merits or existence of moral realism and moral relativism for some time. Generally, the argument is designed as an either or proposition, where only one argument can be true. This is not necessarily true when one takes the time to explore what is meant by moral realism vs. moral relativism (Streitfeld). Essentially, moral realism is an objective view while moral realism is
Then morality is relative, not absolute (Kreeft) Weaknesses One weakness of moral relativism consists of the consequences of not having moral constraints (Kreeft 2003). Correct or good morality, if valid, should always have good consequences. Incorrect or bad morality should always have bad consequences. The fact is that all wrong or immoral acts and attitudes bring on "good" or pleasant feelings. Moral relativism has never produced people worthy of praise. It
Rule-breakers received swift punishment. Deviation from the norm was not tolerated by law or by social convention. Just because a moral standard helps create a stable society does not mean that moral standard is just, good, or right. Finally, the use of coercion itself denotes an unnatural moral standard. It takes relatively little coercion to ensure that most people don't murder or steal. Most children internalize the types of
Relativism n "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues things simply wrong. Do Goodman ? Using specific examples, explore challenges Goodman presents relativism. Determine universal moral requirements, defend answer. Moral minima: Goodman's arguments against relativism Given the increasing globalization of modern society, combined with the influence of postmodernism, the philosophy of moral relativism has become increasingly popular and accepted within the academy. However, according to Lenn E. Goodman's essay "Some moral minima," some things
Morality in America Morals are defined as a set of principles of right action and behavior for the individual. The traditional morals of any given society are the set of moral principles by which the majority of its members have lived over a long time, a consensus which that society has reached on what is considered correct and decent behavior. It is the way one's society expectsone to behave, even if
Moral Minima" by Lenn E. Goodman. (2010) The Good Society 19(1): 87-94 Discussion of morality is almost always contentious. Who defines morality? Whose morality is it? Can one culture's morality be imposed on another's? Can the Westerners judge non-Westerns based on Western understandings of morality and vice versa? These are obviously legitimate questions. Philosophers, social scientists, human rights activists, politicians, and even criminals engage in this debate. In the last
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now