Walter Terance Stace is an empirical philosopher who wrote the article, “Ethics Are Not Relative”, which asserts that “there is no single universal objective standard.” He presents us with two sides, that of the Ethical Relativist (left) vs. that of the Ethical Absolutist (right). The absolutists argue in one true moral code, and that there are no exceptions to this moral code, regardless if it’s contrary to one’s beliefs. While the relativist argues that there are many moral laws, codes, standards. Relativists state that a moral value “is relative to the age, the place, and the circumstance in which it is found.”
Stace first begins explaining how an ethical absolutist views morality. He seems to view absolutism as cut throat, leaving no room …show more content…
As Stace presents the relativists standards in his writing, you can only believe in ethical relativism if you deny the values of an ethical absolutist, and vice versa. Both sides describe “moral standards”, but in two different definitions. For the relativist, the word “standard” is used to subjectively describe the morals of a person at the very moment in question. The relativist would say that it doesn’t matter whether the person thought it was morally right or wrong, because there is but 1 universal moral “standard”. A genuine relativist believes that what one person may think is right, is right even if it goes against what the majority has decided to be right or wrong. Therefore, cannibalism was morally right for those who practiced it, because they genuinely believed it was right. This becomes a problem, because now there is no objective standard which can be used in judging right from …show more content…
It brings a large variety of moral codes/customs into question. The relativist concludes that because there is such a large variety, that there cannot be any universal morality. An absolutist would argue that it is the ignorance of what the absolute moral standard is. Because both these ideas are equally plausible, the the argument is a very weak one. The second argument is the one of command. The absolutist claims that there is one universal moral standard, but from where does it come? Who is to tell us that there are these invisible universalities that we are supposed to follow? This argument presents a problem for an absolutist to explain the issue of command void of religious
Stace first begins explaining how an ethical absolutist views morality. He seems to view absolutism as cut throat, leaving no room …show more content…
As Stace presents the relativists standards in his writing, you can only believe in ethical relativism if you deny the values of an ethical absolutist, and vice versa. Both sides describe “moral standards”, but in two different definitions. For the relativist, the word “standard” is used to subjectively describe the morals of a person at the very moment in question. The relativist would say that it doesn’t matter whether the person thought it was morally right or wrong, because there is but 1 universal moral “standard”. A genuine relativist believes that what one person may think is right, is right even if it goes against what the majority has decided to be right or wrong. Therefore, cannibalism was morally right for those who practiced it, because they genuinely believed it was right. This becomes a problem, because now there is no objective standard which can be used in judging right from …show more content…
It brings a large variety of moral codes/customs into question. The relativist concludes that because there is such a large variety, that there cannot be any universal morality. An absolutist would argue that it is the ignorance of what the absolute moral standard is. Because both these ideas are equally plausible, the the argument is a very weak one. The second argument is the one of command. The absolutist claims that there is one universal moral standard, but from where does it come? Who is to tell us that there are these invisible universalities that we are supposed to follow? This argument presents a problem for an absolutist to explain the issue of command void of religious