A Defense Of Ethical Relativism Essay

estimable RelativismIntroduction            estimable relativism is the stance that in that respect atomic number 18 no moral codes, no moral vilifys or rectify. decent or wrong is based on companionable customs. respectable relativism implies that heaps morals argon dynamic, orbit to times and environment. Ethical relativism accommodates and enables the front man of many different destinations and radiation patterns. It offers mountain the freedom to adapt and bore their socialized ethics and cultures. This reckons that there is no static culture or ethics. Morals be lookent on the decree preferences, technology, logic, emotions, experience and rules among other factors. Morality is very vital since it holds the society together. The rationale of this paper is to explicate the effect of estimable relativism on the morality bond that brings the society together.          &nb sp In ethics, the nonion that nothing is objectively wrong or right and that the definition of right or wrong relies on the existing perception of culture, an singular or history. The existence of morality is not relative to individuality. Thus more or less of the relativists arguments atomic number 18 invalid. Ethical relativism is a knotty theory since there ar various differences within cultures. Peoples preferences whitethorn not for any time be estimablely fix choices. Thus what is cultur every last(predicate)y unobjectionable might not always be morally right. Ethical relativism by definition is a premise that maintains that there be no for the most part accepted honourable codes. Ethical relativism is usually affected the disagreement mingled with right and wrong due to social and personal ethical relativism as well as the intrinsic law premise (Lukes, 2008).            Personal ethical relativism holds that different throng direct diverse moral thoughts. Social ethical relativism holds that different societies throw distinct code of ethics. On the other hand, the natural law presumes that there is a general set of moral value that opposes ethical relativism, however it is faulty. Ruth benedict believes that morals are outlined by culture. benedict also proposes that normal is a variant of the invention of good. According to benedict, behavior allow cipher on what the general culture that is accepted by the society. On contrary, Christina Hoff Sommers proposes that there are some forgiving qualities that are not relative to place, time, situation or circumstance. Ruth and Sommers have different propositions on ethics. Descriptive ethical relativism states that ethical beliefs and judgments are the expressions of the moral attitudes and outlook of individual persons (Lukes, 2008).            I faintly agree with Christina Sommers since peopl e have their declare personal set of moral values. For precedent, an individual may belief that it is morally wrong to have conjure up on the first date. another(prenominal) person might not have any issue with sex in any context. Some ane and only(a) else might not believe in sex onwards marriage, or maybe not at all. In order to judge these views as right or wrong, moral timeworns are very crucial. However, there is no general set of ethical codes which force out be used to judge the views. This example proves differences in ethical virtues amid people and hence signifies ethical relativism. There are flaws in ethical relativism because it does not mean that everyone accept to a notion simply because one group in the society find a habituated save to be acceptable. What is publicly acceptable is extensively variable. If moral standards do not go beyond social principles, no action would be adhesioned as right or wrong (Arrington, 1983).      &nbs p     I totally agree with Benedict that rules of the society serve as a standard. Ethical relativism considers how other cultures countenance other cultures. Ethical relativism brings societies together because it allows for great variance in regard of what is seen as good or bad. Ethical relativism elaborates how one action rotter be regarded as crystallize in one culture, still wrong in the other (Ethical Relativism, 2014). All rudiments of the culture are put into consideration when determining whether an action is wrong or right. Ethical relativism confuses the reforms to be carried out considering what is world done currently. People are strained to tolerate some actions that might be unbearable if there are no socially accepted habits. I disagree with Sommers since human behaviors depend on the time, place, situation or circumstance. Morality, ethical standards and the position of wrong or right are based on culture and hence cogitation to individual pr eferences. Social institutions are very vital since they are lavishly endowed with customs, norms and manner of thinking. Appropriate management of the school-community culture will command that it will warp the young children in the society based on the attitudes and dispositions they acquire at school. Though moral relativism have been widely criticized for being pernicious, incoherent and sophomoric, but it is a plausible doctrine and it has signifi ratt influence on how people live, interact and organize the society (Lukes, 2008).            Morals move across place and time. Children learn values when they are growing, even before they can reason efficiently. Moral relativism is linked to emotional attitudes since values are acquired through emotional conditioning. People decide the position of an action by examining their feelings. Emotions are very necessary in making moral judgments. ethics and morality shape personality. The c apacity to determine whether a practice is correct or immoral develops from life and the environment that people are heart-to-heart to. Society and family are the first exposure where moral system is created. Benedict view social institutions as communities with common virtues and practices that have become civilize patterns of practices and ideas. Benedict arguments reveal how diverse cultures employ different moral principles in an endeavor to survive as a culture. Benedict is more correct in her analysis regarding the differences among cultures. There are some features of cultures that are not based on any universal moral standards. There is no general rule that moral cultures must abide to a given code to survive, and that the cultures that do not follow a code are not moral (Ethical Relativism, 2014).            Benedict states that morality differs in all societies and is a suitable term for socially accepted habits. Opponents of e thical relativism contend that, if ethical relativism is right, there can be no general locution for resolving ethical dispute or for realizing agreement on ethical issues among affiliates of different societies. Many ethicists oppose ethical relativism since they argue that although moral practices in the community differ, the values underlying those actions remain unchanged. Societies might deviate in their application of the elementary moral ideologies, but they agree on the principles. It can be argued that some ethical beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Some practices such as customs concerning dressing mode may depend on local traditions, while other practices such as political repression or slavery might be determined by general ethical standards and judged incorrect regardless the various other differences that lam among cultures (Arrington, 1983).            The notion that some cultural practices are relat ive does not mean that all moral practices are relative. Ethical relativism may also be criticized on the basis of its effect to personal ethical values. It may be argued that if morals entirely depend on social norms, it follows that if a indisputable society believes in racial practices, its members must admit to racism as morally right. Members of a given community have different opinions regarding a given practice. Ethical relativism believes that culture is the standard to examine whether a practice is right or wrong. Ethical relativism might be criticized, but it helps people to ac knowledge that communities have different moral values and that these beliefs are subject to culture. Ethical relativism also encourage people to explore reasons as to why communities have differing beliefs, and also contend people to scrutinize their reasons for the beliefs and values they support. Benedicts argument about how morality is relative is sound. Benedict uses an example of Kwakiutl so ciety regarding murder. Kwakiutl practice of murder is intolerable in the modern society, but it was acceptable in Kwakiutl. Kwakiutl cannot be judged for their acts because they that was a social norm when one of their relatives died. Today such practice would be regarded as murder and is illegal and a crime that is absolutely penalized by the society and the law (Ethical Relativism, 2014).            Benedict concludes that moral relativism is the correct view of moral principles which imply that right or wrong is determined by culture and environmental events. For event people might accept capital penalization and oppose abortion. chief city punishment is regarded as wrong and hence punished with death. On contrary, oppose abortion is like denying women their freedom of their body. According to Benedict, regardless of the consequences behind an abortion, if the society opposes it implies that abortion is morally wrong hence it will maintain the justice worth of moral relativism. The notion that abortion is wrong is due to the fact that peoples behaviors are shaped by their history, culture and environment. indeed the right worth of their ethics relies on what is more rational to social structures. On the other hand if people believe that capital punishment is a way of attaining justice, they will consider it morally right. Morals are shared amongst people and the community, and it is seen as a normalcy condition of morals (Lukes, 2008).            In conclusion, I agree with Benedict argument of ethical relativism where she holds that people change their opinions and principles depending on the majority rule. I agree that morals set out with time, culture and environment. However, I do not agree that any practice is morally right or wrong depending on the majority. Benedict adds that the inclination of the normal is accurately a variant of the notion of good. Be haviors will depend on the cultural norms. Ethical relativism allows a wide variety of practices and cultures. It will enable people to adapt morally as technology, culture and knowledge change in society. This is an excellent and a type of relativism. Ethical relativism faces the challenge because people find it hard to adapt to new morals, new ideas and their own culture. The word is increasingly becoming culturally diverse thus making people find it hard to accept something different. Culture is a standard for assessing the position of a practice, whether it is right or wrong.ReferencesArrington, R. L. (1983). A Defense Of Ethical Relativism. Metaphilosophy, 14(3-4), 225-239.Ethical Relativism. (n.d.). CARM. Retrieved September 22, 2014, from http//carm.org/ethical-relativismLukes, S. (2008). Moral relativism. New York Picador.Source document