Simply stated, it means that there are no intrinsically right or wrong actions. Ethical relativism gives way for three implications concerning ethics.
Which are tolerance towards other cultures and there views. Ethical relativism is when no ethical principles are universally valid at the same time. Murder is a good example of an action that is subjectively right or wrong depending on where you are, what you are, who you are, or when the issue is considered.
Throughout this paper I am going to evaluate the pros and cons of ethical relativism for a case concerning cannibalism. Society regularly rewards the heroics of a "soldier" at war defending our country, but punishes a "soldier" in a street gang that defends his neighborhood against an enemy gang.
Ethical relativism is not helpful at all when dealing with overlapping of cultures. To be initiated into the tribe they had to raid a neighboring village and kill some of their neighboring tribesmen and bring them back and cook and eat their bodies, which Daniel took part.
Ethical relativism is good because it allows people to adapt their actions when for example the greater good is at stake, but just because people think something is right does not make it so. For example, in the case of Daniel bringing his culture back to the United States, although the ethical relativist would let him, but it probably would not last because others would not be as accepting.
Take for example our dilemma with Daniel and his new culture. So they would eventually kill themselves off if they too were ethical relativists.
Is it morally correct? Within this paper I discuss the certain implications that go along with ethical relativism. According to that particular social community. The straight ethical relativist would say that whatever culture Daniel wants to practice is his business and no one should do anything to stop him from practicing what he believes as morally correct.
If moral standards go no deeper than social customs, no one way of doing things is any better or worse than the next. Is either situation fundamentally right or wrong? The first is ethical relativism preaches tolerance towards different cultures and their ethics. For example stealing is wrong but so is not feeding your family.
If we cannot judge others then they can neither judge us. Next, we should not pass judgment on practices in other cultures, which we do not understand. Also that there is no moral argument possible. While Daniel was studying this tribe they accepted him, and eventually made him part of their tribe.
Giving cultural freedom in which no one culture can forcible institute their laws of ethics on another culture.
Universal moral principles exist in the intention behind an action and each culture, society, and community determines there own right and wrong based on a balance between the pursuit of the greater good and the rights of the individual.
An American man by the name of Daniel went to South America, for the reasons of writing a book on it and publishing it in the United States, to study a native tribe and to try to become part of it. The rules of the society serve as a standard.
In this case of cannibalism inside a non-cannibalistic society for the most partwe must also look at their behavior, and what is really relative. What is universally socially acceptable is widely variable. Also ethical relativism is self-defensive.
From the self-defensive standpoint ethical relativism begins to make more sense to myself.Social ethical relativism holds that different societies have distinct code of ethics.
On the other hand, the natural law presumes that there is a general set of moral values that opposes ethical relativism, however it.
Ethical relativism is the philosophy that morality is relative to the norms of ones culture or community. In other words, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of 4/4(1).
The natural law theory suggests that there is a universal set of moral beliefs, which contradicts ethical relativism, but it is flawed. Individual or personal ethical relativism, also known as descriptive ethical relativism, states that "ethical judgments and beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook and attitudes of individual persons".
- The Theory of Ethical Relativism The theory behind ethical relativism states that ethical standards are not concrete for all societies and times, but rather are relative to the standards of individual societies.
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.
A second view, which is sometimes called "cultural relativism," is the view that ethical judgments and moral rules always reflect the cultural context from which they are derived and cannot be immediately applied to other cultural contexts.Download