moral relativism vs moral absolutism essay

Introduction | History of Moral Relativism | Criticisms of Moral Relativism | Types of Moral Relativism  Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It does not deny outright the truth-value or justification of moral statements (as some forms of Moral Anti-Realism do), but affirms relative forms of them. It may be described by the common aphorism: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. Moral Relativists point out that humans are not omniscient, and history is replete with examples of individuals and societies acting in the name of an infallible truth later demonstrated to be more than fallible, so we should be very wary of basing important ethical decisions on a supposed absolute claim. Absolutes also tend to inhibit experimentation and foreclose possible fields of inquiry which might lead to progress in many fields, as well as stifling the human spirit and quest for meaning. In addition, the short term proves itself vastly superior in the ethical decision-making process than the relatively unknown long-term. Relativistic positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (Cultural Relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (Ethical Subjectivism). A related but slightly different concept is that of Moral Pluralism (or Value Pluralism), the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other (e.g. the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no.
This is an answer to a question on yahoo answers I was just replying for fun but my reply was too long for yahoo answers so I thought I’d post it here and link to it. Moral Relativism is very very odd and has probably come from practical anthropology rather than actual philosophy. I think moral relativism works as a description of the way people in our culture act. But if you’re talking about a well thought through philosophical position a better comparison is between “Moral Absolutism” and “Moral Nihilism” where nihilism is simply that there are no moral propositions that are true or false. (Also known as Moral Skepticism which is similar) Moral Relativism states (sort of, it’s hard to describe as no one really thinks it) that the truth of moral propositions is relative to the context of the culture that it is in. For example in “Civilised Western Society” rape is wrong but “random cannibalistic tribal society” might accept Rape as ok. Moral Relativism states that in one place the act is fully completely wrong but moving to a new geography/ community makes it suddenly completely morally acceptable. This was a good thing in anthropology. Studying cultures used to be through a completely colonialist lens and so in the study of cultures it is good to try and study it from the culture’s point of view. If we look at a culture that says murder is ok (For example state sanction murder in the US with capital punishment). We’ll get a better understanding of it if we try and do it from the American point of view rather than enforce European Human Rights based assumptions. However that is about describing about how a community is. It becomes completely different when you describe how a community ought to behave. It just seems bizarre that raping someone in one place.
Moral Relativism Refuted Have you ever heard these words: ‘What is true for you is not true for me’ -- ‘Don’t impose your values on me’ -- ‘You have no right to tell me what to do’? Sure you have. These words are very popular. Unfortunately, they have been taught in schools. How many teachers have you heard say, “Come on guys, don’t be scared. There is no right or wrong opinions.” This is from the idea called relativism. Relativism is the philosophy that denies absolutes or what is really true. There are four kinds of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and religious. The metaphysical relativism is the claim that there are no absolutes in reality; epistemological is that there are no absolutes in knowledge; morality is the denial of moral absolutes; and religious is the clam that there is no true religion. We are going to deal mostly with moral relativism in this essay. But first, I must refute the propositions ‘what is true for you is not true for me’ and ‘there is no right or wrong opinion.’ The first proposition, what is true for you is not true for me, is self-contradictory since it asserts an absolute, which is, what is true for you is not true for me. In other words, is it absolutely true that what is true for you is not true for me? Again, it asserts an absolute, making it self-contradictory. The second proposition, that there is no right or wrong opinions, is a wrong proposition too. Let me give an example of an opinion that can either be right or wrong. If someone says, ‘In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden is dead,’ can he be right or wrong? If Osama is dead, then he is right, if not, then he is wrong. He might not know if he is right or wrong, but he is either right or wrong. Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore the proposition that there is no right or wrong opinion is false. Let us start with moral relativism. Moral relativism is the.
Search Lots of Essays We are dedicated to helping students with their everyday College needs. If you have any questions or comments Please feel free to e-mail us @ feedback@ChuckIII.com Thanks to students like YOU! Please, Keep them coming and help us grow Back to Subjects - Philosophy Absolutism vs Relativism Limited Time Offer at Lots of Essays.com!!! We have made a special deal with a well known Professional Research Paper company to offer you up to 15 professional research papers per month for just .95. This company normally charges per page. If you were to look at 15 paper that were 10 pages each, you would be getting access to over 00 worth of High Quality research papers for .95. They have over 32,000 papers to choose from, so don't waste your time looking through free essays when for a limited time you can get The Highest Quality papers at a crazy price. Click Here to sign up. Please select one of the following: Word Count: 1171 Research Help HOME Custom Term Papers Free Term Papers Free Essays Free Book Reports Free Cliff Notes Plagiarism? Citing Sources   Pay Sites     50,000 Professionally Written Papers @ Lots Of Essays.com Search 101,000 Papers @ Example Essays.com   Free Essay Sites     Free College Essays College Term Papers   Links     Term Paper Sites College Links   College Resources     Dorm Check list   Comments    What would you like to see at ChuckIII's College Resources? Contact Us   Info     Free Essays Free Essays Home   Copyright © 1998-2014 ChuckIII's College Resources Inc., All Rights Reserved DMCA Notifications and Requests.
Moral absolutist Vs. Moral Relativist       As parents we try and raise our kids with knowledge of right and wrong. But depending on the way some kids are raised will depend on what they believe is right or wrong. With some people there is a clear line between right and wrong and no matter what situation there is a clear line that should not be crossed. Then there are people that believe there is a right and wrong but sometimes you can do wrong if it’s for a good reason.   The dictionary has a name for these two types of people: Moral absolutist who believes in the clear line and that it should never be crossed, and moral relativists who believe in the line but believe it can be crossed only in certain situations.       In American Vision and Values moral absolutism can be clearly defined and making moral judgments is good and necessary for human decency and freedom (Rauchut 2008, p. 320).   For example, a moral absolutist would believe that killing is wrong even if that person killed in self defense.   There are consequence for breaking laws and a clear choice between moral conflicts. For humanity to endure and maintain freedom, absolutist believes it is crucial to follow the rules of the land.   For example, let’s say a man was stealing some food because his family was starving. Does that give him the right to steal because he is hungry? An absolutist would think stealing is wrong regardless of the situation. Who cares if your family is starving! Stealing is wrong and now you have to deal with the consequences.       Moral relativism is the opposite view of moral absolutism which believes that no person can or should critic another because a person cannot have complete grasp of the reasons why another person makes the decisions they do. From the example above a moral relativist would see the man as stealing but for a good cause.   A relativist would not steal but.
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless. Relativism about morality has come to play an increasingly important role in contemporary culture.  To many thoughtful people, and especially to those who are unwilling to derive their morality from a religion, it appears unavoidable.  Where would absolute facts about right and wrong come from, they reason, if there is no supreme being to decree them? We should reject moral absolutes, even as we keep our moral convictions, allowing that there can be right and wrong relative to this or that moral code, but no right and wrong per se.  (See, for example, Stanley Fish’s 2001 op-ed, “Condemnation Without Absolutes.”)[1] When we decided that there were no such things as witches, we didn’t become relativists about witches. Is it plausible to respond to the rejection of absolute moral facts with a relativistic view of morality?  Why should our response not be a more extreme, nihilistic one, according to which we stop using normative terms like “right” and “wrong” altogether, be it in their absolutist or relativist guises? Relativism is not always a coherent way of responding to the rejection of a certain class of facts.  When we decided that there were no such things as witches, we didn’t become relativists about witches.  Rather, we just gave up witch talk altogether, except by way of characterizing the attitudes of people (such as those in Salem) who mistakenly believed that the world contained witches, or by way of characterizing what it is that children find it fun to pretend to be on Halloween.  We became what we may call “eliminativists” about witches. On the other hand, when Einstein taught us, in his Special Theory of Relativity, that there was no such thing as the absolute simultaneity of two events, the recommended outcome was that we become relativists about.