Ethical Relativism: Morality Relative to Culture & Society - Essay Sample

Introduction

Ethical relativism can be defined as a theory that views morality as relative to the norms and beliefs of a person's culture. This implies that the fact that an action is considered to be right or wrong, it is based on the standards and expectations of a particular society in which the work is being practiced (MacKinnon, Barbara, and Fiala 54). A specific action may be wrong in another culture, while in another society, the same act may be right. It should be pointed out that ethical relativism is not necessarily based on the fact that there exists no objective means that can be used to evaluate and make a comparison between a set of ethics (Stace 50). Although this proposition holds some truth in the fact that ethics are defined subjectively and hence, it can be evaluated in a subjectively way. Ethical relativism seems to be self-contradictory since it does not clearly define what makes a justification for an action to be right or wrong since an act can be right from a personal perspective and wrong to another.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Ethical relativism seems to be self-contradiction in that its concepts hold that an action can be wrong to one person while the same act is right to another person. This is a contradiction statement since an action cannot be right and wrong at the same time (MacKinnon, Barbara, and Fiala 53). The problem with ethical relativism is that it does not define the measure of the rightness or wrongness of an action. This means that there is no justification to view an act as right or wrong. While several people will believe in the fact that the world exists, some may have a different perspective to claim that ethical beliefs never exist. In this regard, there is no moral justification that is real beyond a limited cultural context. This makes people argue that the morality of other people's culture should always be respected and it should never be judged on different perspective but their own.

It is a self-contradiction for people to claim that what they tend to do is correct beyond a limited cultural perspective. People who tend to recognize themselves as moral relativists are likely to contradict the relativistic perspective that there are no universal ethical truths that exist, which shows that they are not real relativists (Hackett 101). Moral relativism cannot be viewed as self-refuting; however, this should not prevent an individual from believing that one should behave in one way but not another. It is a contradictory statement since the same account cannot be true from a real moral relativist perspective. Therefore, this brings a question as to whether people should either be moral realists or not. If a person denies the presence of truth, he should then refrain himself from making purportedly legal claims on what others should do for him to remain consistent (Stace 46). This aspect makes moral relativist to be very valued in ethics as the relativist who contradicts the truth that occurs in a factual matter. Several self-professed moral relativists will live to believe that they can claim particular ethical statements as accurate, though in a specific cultural basis. However, this cannot be defined as moral relativism but can be seen as a moral realism with a perspective of ethical facts that a person can recognize as conceptualistic. These positions are likely to encounter challenges of their own, particularly problems that face a strong conceptualistic perception of beliefs. Moral relativism holds a hard distinction in the cultures and principles that are hard to draw and to defend (Hackett 100). Moral relativism is very unsafe for people's ethics as relativism as for the entire beliefs for any science. In this regard, this makes progress impossible and denies the development that people have made. Contrary to what moral relativist thinks, people have moral obligations, particularly the one that stands for someone to go past moral relativism.

Most ethicists tend to disagree with the concept of ethical relativism. In this regard, some ethicists have claimed that moral activities of one society may differ from the other, but the fundamental moral culture that is underlying these activities does not. Some actions may be condemned in one community, which means that we can agree with these kinds of societies in the aspect of trying to underlay moral principles. Moreover, it is believed that some moral beliefs might be culturally relative while some are not. Various activities such as customs to do with dressing may be based on the local customs, while other activities such as political repression may depend on common moral standards that are judged by people wrongly despite several differences that exist in some societies. Such view implies that because some activities are relative does not mean that every action is corresponding too. Many philosophers have made some critics concerning ethical relativism due to its implications on personal moral beliefs. They claim that if an act is considered to be wrong or right, this depends on the norms and culture of a specific society. Therefore, it means a person must comply with the beliefs of that society, and to act contrary to these norms is acting immorally.

Additionally, if a person is a member of a society that advocates for racial practices to be morally permissible, then there is a need for a person to accept those activities as ethically right. This kind of perception encourages social conformity while creating a space for moral reform in society. However, people who belong to the same community might have a contrary perspective towards a particular practice. A strong stand on ethical relativism originates from people who assert that common moral standards can only happen if some ethical activities and customs vary in some cultures (Hackett 100). However, people can recognize cultural differences in ethical activities and traditions and still hold that some of these activities are morally wrong. Kant has tried to reveal the law of contradiction as one of the highest laws of reason as the basis of the moral law. He claims that for a person to act immorally, it involves someone in practices of logical contradiction. Kant gives an example that if a person makes a promise that he intends to break, it is incorrect since this means that the person is acting upon two different principles that contradict one another.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ethical relativism has been defined as a theory that outlook morality as relative to the norms and beliefs of a person's culture. It means action can be deliberated to be right or wrong is based on the standards and expectations of a particular culture in which the act is being practiced. Therefore, it is a self-contradiction for people to argue that what they want to undertake is correct beyond a limited cultural perspective. The majority of people who try to recognize themselves as moral relativists are prone to contradict the relativistic view that there are no universal ethical truths that occur, which shows that they are not genuine relativists. Some self-professed moral relativists will live to consider what they claim particular ethical statements as real but in a specific cultural frame. In this regard, Kant explains the law of contradiction as one of the utmost laws of reason as the basis of moral law. Hence, he claims that for a person to act immorally, it involves that person in a practice of logical contradiction.

Works Cited

Hackett, Stuart C. The Rediscovery of the Highest Good: A Philosophical and Critical Ethic. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Print.

MacKinnon, Barbara, and Andrew Fiala. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Stamford [Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2015. Print.

Stace, W T. The Concept of Morals. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980. Print.