...Ethical Relativism Name: Tutor: College: Course: Date: Introduction Several cultures, individuals and historical periods have a belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong in ethics. They hold different views concerning what should and/or what should not be done. Therefore, ethical relativism can be defined as a predisposition to make ethical choices, on the basis of what seems to be precise or reasonable according to an individual’s value system or belief. It supports the theory that argues that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind, and the conditions for knowing. Ethical relativism views that there are several ethical truths that depend on the groups or individuals holding them. In the most basic terms, ethical relativism is the belief that different things are true and right, at different times, and for different people (Trevino & Nelson, (2011). Ethical relativism can be applied in the solution of several problems in the society today. One of those problems is corruption, which has affected nearly all countries of the world today. There are more than a few forms of corruption practiced today. However, in the American culture, for instance, the main forms of corruption include bribery, graft, patronage, nepotism and cronyism, kickbacks, unholy alliance and embezzlement (Paul, Miller & Paul, (2008). The two forms of corruption that were discussed and found to affect the Kentucky Fried Beef Company...
Words: 973 - Pages: 4
...Empire State College Ethical Relativism Beau Fletcher An Introduction to Philosophy Professor Nicholas Hardaker The world is an immensely diverse and unique place with societies that are radically different from one another. Relativists argue that there is no universal ethical standard to identify what is right or wrong; instead, it is up to each society to develop a moral standard that is most compatible with their distinctive culture. Ethical Relativism argues that people should act within the moral standards set forth by their specific culture. It is also important to note that a society can evolve (as well as regress) over time, making way for a revised set of moral standards that are more compatible with sociological views at that time. I found it hard to identify many of my peers as having either a relativist, or absolutist position within the discussions. Many seem to have a conglomerate of the ‘best’ ideals from both sides of the spectrum. There are however, some great examples of both absolutist and relativist minds in the class discussions, being able to look at exactly how they both apply their reasoning to arrive at radically different stances on some fundamental questions about ethics and moral standards. Before I get into defining some examples of both relativist and absolutist ideologies, I want to start with a post from week two that is an excellent example of relativism in action and that shows how radically two different society’s moral standards...
Words: 1585 - Pages: 7
...Fabio Cuetara Philosophy October 15, 2011 Right or Wrong Ethical Relativism is the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period. Different cultures have different ethical and moral standards that might seem odd or wrong but if they are justifiable and or not completely forced upon a group then there should be nothing wrong with said act. I agree with ethical relativism, to a certain extent, the fact that people in our modern culture criticize or judge people in others for what they do and why they do it is morally wrong. We have never had an absolute ethical standard in history so just because we think something is right or wrong doesn’t mean it is, different people respond differently to certain ideas and actions. Ethical Relativism shows us that some practices are ethically right in their respective cultures and that we should respect other people’s ethical decisions if they are made out of necessity or choice by the group of people involved. What one culture might think is absolutely horrible and wrong, might be completely acceptable and necessary in another. In other cultures some decisions are made for the survival of the civilization. The Eskimos sometimes leave there new born female children behind in the frigid climate to die. At first glance that seems incredibly wrong and inhumane, but looking further into the reasoning...
Words: 1259 - Pages: 6
...The question of whether ethical relativism or ethical absolutism is right has been the subject of much debate, and perhaps may never be answered for certain. It is certain, however, that at the present time, ethical relativism is in general accepted as the standard. Although I realize that given the fact that the best of philosophers have failed to give solid arguments for either ethical relativism or ethical absolutism will most likely be unable as well, however that is not my goal. Rather my purpose is simply to make us question the ethical relativism to which we have become so accustomed, and to demonstrate some reasons why ethical absolutism may be correct. We all know that people, in general, treat ethics as being subjective. Does that, however, make that right, just, and ethical? To put it simply, the answer is: no. This is obvious given the common example, "if all the other kids were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too." The masses are not always right. So now the thought in all your minds is "come on - go ahead! Prove us wrong." I'm not trying to prove anything, however I will hopefully give you enough information to make you question what is right, and if I do, then I've accomplished my goals. Lets begin with the basics. "What are absolute ethics?" Ethical Absolutism, is undeviating moral discipline. Nothing is relative; a crime is a crime, regardless of circumstances. For a quick demonstration of ethical relativism let us use the example of murder. Is it ok...
Words: 2114 - Pages: 9
...Cultural and ethical relativism are two extensive theories that are used to rationalize the differences amongst cultures in regards to their morals and ethics. Ruth Benedict, a significant American anthropologist from 1887 to 1948, moved from the theories of cultural relativism to the theories of ethical relativism, which brought major criticism to her work and philosophy’s. Cultural relativism is the view that one is born into a particular culture. Culture in this definition is the sum of peoples’ practices, from birth rituals, to how adolescence is defined, to gender roles. Being born into a particular culture shapes one’s particular worldview. A person cannot fully participate in a culture unless that person has “lived according to its...
Words: 1013 - Pages: 5
...A Defense of Ethical Relativism-Ruth Benedict Summary Paper Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. Benedict mentions emotions such as joy, anger, and grief, or human drives such as the sex drive, and argues that these emotions can be expressed differently in other cultures than they are expressed in our own culture. Throughout the essay Benedict discusses about various examples starting from homosexuality to the Northwest coast Indians. In Ethical relativism moral progress does not exist she proves this with the help of homosexuality, today also it is not widely accepted in many cultures but then still it depends from cultures to cultures. In her study regarding the northwest island of Melanesia she shows that different cultures have different sets of values, customs, ethics & morals. For example among the Kwakiutl tribe if a member of a community dies instead of moaning for that persons death they avenge the death by going out and killing some other individual. For me as an Indian or any other American this behavior as abnormal, unsound and extreme. However these people view their very normal and they would be even honored for doing this. Therefore we recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a...
Words: 646 - Pages: 3
...Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, and Moral Relativism Tom Gardner Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to answer the questions; what’s right? What’s wrong? And why? Moral relativism is an ethics position that essentially states that people have disagreeing moral beliefs and therefore you must but tolerant of other's morals. This position leads to the problematic realization that if this is the case there can be no objective moral truths nor can there be any universal principles. Act utilitarianism and ethical egoism are two different ethics theories that attempt to respond to this challenge of moral relativism in different ways. Ethical egoism attempts to respond to the challenge of moral relativism by justifying that there is a universal principle for what actions are right and what are wrong. It is a form of consequentialism, which means it looks solely at the consequences of action to see if it is right or wrong. The defining sentence of egoism is as follows, “What's good for you is right and what's bad for you is wrong.” This phrase can be interpreted in a number of ways, the most popular one being: every person should act in their own self-interest. This means that when deciding on whether an action is good, any effect on others (mental or physical) by said action has no merit. An egoist that is measuring or justifying an action's goodness is only examining the possible positive or negative effects this action will have on him. The majority of the justification...
Words: 1382 - Pages: 6
...Ethical Relativism 1. Ethical Relativism: In this lecture, we will discuss a moral theory called ethical relativism (sometimes called “cultural relativism”). Ethical Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong is dependent upon what one’s culture believes is right or wrong. In short, if your society or culture BELIEVES that some action is morally wrong, then it IS morally wrong for everyone within that society. Businesspeople often claim something similar. They say, for instance, that businesses operate under their own system of morality. What is deemed to be right by some business IS right for that business. This makes morality relative. For instance, if one society says cannibalism is morally wrong, while another says it is morally permissible, then the fact of whether or not cannibalism is morally wrong will just be a relative one—namely, whether or not it is wrong for someone will just depend upon which society they are in. We will now ask the question: Does some action become right or wrong just because one’s society, or employer, SAYS it is right or wrong? Or rather, is it the case that there are some moral standards that apply to ALL businesses and societies, regardless of whether or not those societies believe in those standards? 2. The Argument From Disagreement: Why believe that morality is relative? Relativists often say that widespread moral disagreement proves that their view is true. They say: 1. Different people have different beliefs...
Words: 2510 - Pages: 11
...Ruhlman Ms. Rooney ENC-1101 19 November, 2013 Ethical Relativism At what point do we need to refocus our priorities as a civilization? Ethical relativism can best be understood by focusing on the juxtaposition of the benefits of biotechnological advancements in the food industry with the synergetic natural relationship of all living organisms. The argument supporting our technologically enhanced farming is often overlooked by the idealists of our society vying for the end of world hunger. Is it realistic to believe that without these processed foods which make up over two thirds of the world’s diet; the population would be remotely similar in size to that of a population using non-biologically engineered or enhanced foods? Has our society grown to such magnitudes merely as a result of our ability to produce food as quickly and efficiently as we currently do? At what point will humanity’s demand, exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity? This then raises the question of morality. Is it ethically right to turn our backs and deny a portion of our ever-growing population the ability to eat knowing we are beginning to challenge global sustainability? Arguably, it is reasonable to assume that if you were to take away our overly processed, biologically re-engineered foods in order to reach equilibrium, there would be a proportionate loss of human life. This however, may be the only way to ensure humanity’s survival. This is where ethical relativity has to be decided as a society. Is...
Words: 1088 - Pages: 5
...and the systematic study of the former (Joseph Omoregbe 1993 p.3)2. How then do we decide what is morally right? Is it based on universal laws or divine instructions? Are laws truly universal? If they are not, how then can the rightness or wrongness of culturally divergent societies be determined? Philosophers agree and disagree in varied proportions on answers to these questions. It is normal if you disagree too. For the purpose of this paper, an attempt will be made to look into the concept of ethical relativism, its importance and areas of deviation from ethical absolutism. History of Ethical Relativism Though moral relativism did not become a prominent topic in philosophy or elsewhere until the twentieth century, it has ancient origins. In the classical Greek world, both the historian Herodotus and the sophist Protagoras appeared to endorse some form of relativism. The early Sophist Greek philosopher Protagoras provides an early philosophical precursor to modern Moral Relativism in his assertion that "man is the measure of all things". The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484 - 420 B.C.) observed that each society typically regards its own belief system and way of doing things as better than all others. Plato also pointed out that much of what is believed to be...
Words: 3962 - Pages: 16
...really believe that Nazism is wrong if you're a relativist? And if you don't really believe Nazism is wrong, how will you oppose it?" My experience has been that people who advocate most loudly for ethical relativism are generally not open- minded. Indeed, in my years of existence, relativist people have been positively rabid in rejecting anything that challenges their views. They’re blocking the things or circumstances which seems to hinder their perspectives. I’ve watched some of these on TV – the live court hearings/trials that divulge different issues in our government which eventually invade the personal lives of those who were involved in such political issues. Perhaps we need to approach the issue more pragmatically. On point of view, I...
Words: 680 - Pages: 3
...Jonathan Temporal UNSW ASB Student number 3413771 Xerox’s actions are reminiscent of ethical relativism. As derived from Donaldson’s (1996) article, ethical relativism holds that no single code of ethics is superior than others, and so there is no absolute right and wrong (Donaldson, 1996). Ethical absolutism holds that regardless of one’s location or environment, there is only one correct set of ethical principles (Donaldson, 1996). As a business, Xerox’s main concern is making a profit. As long as it profits, it doesn’t see anything unethical in selling machines with capabilities greater than what customers actually need. Even if Xerox did see this as not being completely ethical, it compensates for this by doing a good deed – donating a percentage of its profits to charity. Hence, Xerox’s standards of what is ethical behaviour is very flexible and changes depending on its other actions. Donaldson (1996, p. 7) enumerates three core values that define “minimum ethical standards for all companies”. Evaluated against these core values, I believe Xerox’s actions are not unethical. These actions do not physically harm the customers, nor do they deny them of basic human values (Donaldson 1996). For every sale made, Xerox donates to charity. To me, this reciprocity satisfies the “Golden Rule” (Donaldson 1996, p. 7). Finally, Xerox did not force or deceive customers into buying their more expensive machines. Xerox can be said to have encouraged customers to “up-size”...
Words: 259 - Pages: 2
...Philo. 5 Finally Essay Questions 1. Ethical relativism is the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles, that all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice. Thus it means what's right for you may not be what's right for me. So most probably, ethical relativist would have tons of different opinions among the 19 people and me. Some might think to protect themselves are the truths, thus they would kill Freddy. Some might regard that we are friends, so we could not betrayed each other, thus, as a result, people would not kill Freddy, and instead, all of the persons in the caves would be drowned. In Philosophy, egoism is the theory that one's self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one's own action. It advises us to love ourselves first even if it means hurting others. So in this case, if there are ethical egoists in the group, for these people, whom love themselves greater than anyone else, would blow Freddy out decidedly. Because if and only if they kill Freddy, thus it makes them sure for surviving from the rising tide. The definition of utilitarianism is that a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences. Also we can understand this meaning as a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So in this case, utilitarian would mostly...
Words: 1394 - Pages: 6
...Part A: Explain what it means in ethics to call a theory relativist? [25 marks] In this essay I will include what it means in ethics to call a theory relativist. Relativism is when people don’t always agree about what's right and what's wrong, this means there is no need to interfere whether its wrong or right. This suggests it has different cultures express different codes of conduct. Subjective links to relativism because it is when your dependent on some types of emotion or thoughts, Subjective is internal also it is about what you think about something. Theological is the final outcome and what comes out of it this is important in normative terms; some philosophers believe that the end is not how you achieve it is mainly about the outcome. Cultural relativism is an individual belief and activities should be understood an individuals own culture. It is the sort of approach which leads people to say things, 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do'. For example the Maassai Tribe drink the blood of their animals to get important nutrients for their bodies, although they are careful not to kill the cattle, as their wealth is measured in the number of animals they keep. This suggests they are not doing anything wrong according to culture relativism because they are following their traditions, they believe that they are not doing wrong as they are following society's morals. Also different cultures should respect each other cultures, for example in Islam some women may choose...
Words: 889 - Pages: 4
...ANT 101 Final Exam Answers Buy Now From Below: http://www.homeworkarena.com/ant-101-final-timetest Question 1. Question : Your Final Research Paper will consist of two parts, which are Question 2. Question : Which of the following is an example of an etic statement about Americans? Question 3. Question : For your Final Research Paper, you will use an article by Miner entitled Body Ritual among the Nacirema. The following is a quotation from this article, “The Nacirema have an almost pathological horror of and fascination with the mouth, the condition of which is believed to have a supernatural influence on all social relationships. Were it not for the rituals of the mouth, they believe that their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed, their jaws shrink, their friends desert them, and their lovers reject them. They also believe that a strong relationship exists between oral and moral characteristics. For example, there is a ritual ablution of the mouth for children which is supposed to improve their moral fiber” (Miner, 1956, p.504). Question 4. Question : According to your textbook, “Contrary to a popular misconception in the West, homosexuality is not universally stigmatized. Based on the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of 186 societies, Crapo (1995) found that only 31% of people stigmatized homosexual behavior, while the remainder either considered homosexual experimentation to be a normal developmental phase of preadult life (38%), accepted...
Words: 535 - Pages: 3
