Moral relativism is a commonly held position among many. This could be due to the regard for the value of tolerance or the truth in descriptive moral relativism. But my argument will be against meta-ethical moral relativism: there exists moral truths but these truths are not absolutes but relative.
If morality is relative, there is no ultimate right or wrong. Because, there isn’t an objective point of reference to differentiate between right and wrong. If one were to examine subjective morals, it could constitute two specific features - moral feelings and practical reasoning. Therefore so long as these two criteria are met, any action based on moral judgements can be justified as morally right or wrong. However this seems quite strange to …show more content…
The Nazi’s ideology saw the act of holocaust as not immoral but a service to humanity. Their moral feelings and practical reasoning consented to it. But on actual fact, what they did was wrong. They ought not to have done it because of the degree of inhumanity associated with it! Their cultural framework or belief system did not matter, because the intrinsic nature of the act was immoral.
If morality is relative, and every culture has its own socially constructed framework of right and wrong, should we accept the holocaust ,cultures that practice infanticide or genital mutilation as moral because it is relative to their culture? No, instead such cultures ought to be educated because their worldview could be incoherent, which is why the morality anchored to it has been erroneously taken. A worldview is the lens through which you ultimately look at reality, a set of assumptions or assertions made through which you look at every decisions that shape your values. The worldview (foundation) is the reason why morality seems subjective on the surface, but in actual fact the …show more content…
But that is logically contradictory, therefore false. The existence of multiple moral codes (interpretations) is not the same as a moral fact. To illustrate, when someone knocks your door and you heard it, but your friend insists that no one knocked it. Whether your friend agrees with you or not, it does nothing to change the fact that someone is at the door- that is the truth. But if you were to take a relativistic approach, you would have to believe that someone is at the door (in relative to you) and, someone is not at the door (in relative to your friend) which is ultimately self-refuting. This self-contradiction could be subconscious, mistaken reasoning, or contradictory intuitions. We shan’t go
If morality is relative, there is no ultimate right or wrong. Because, there isn’t an objective point of reference to differentiate between right and wrong. If one were to examine subjective morals, it could constitute two specific features - moral feelings and practical reasoning. Therefore so long as these two criteria are met, any action based on moral judgements can be justified as morally right or wrong. However this seems quite strange to …show more content…
The Nazi’s ideology saw the act of holocaust as not immoral but a service to humanity. Their moral feelings and practical reasoning consented to it. But on actual fact, what they did was wrong. They ought not to have done it because of the degree of inhumanity associated with it! Their cultural framework or belief system did not matter, because the intrinsic nature of the act was immoral.
If morality is relative, and every culture has its own socially constructed framework of right and wrong, should we accept the holocaust ,cultures that practice infanticide or genital mutilation as moral because it is relative to their culture? No, instead such cultures ought to be educated because their worldview could be incoherent, which is why the morality anchored to it has been erroneously taken. A worldview is the lens through which you ultimately look at reality, a set of assumptions or assertions made through which you look at every decisions that shape your values. The worldview (foundation) is the reason why morality seems subjective on the surface, but in actual fact the …show more content…
But that is logically contradictory, therefore false. The existence of multiple moral codes (interpretations) is not the same as a moral fact. To illustrate, when someone knocks your door and you heard it, but your friend insists that no one knocked it. Whether your friend agrees with you or not, it does nothing to change the fact that someone is at the door- that is the truth. But if you were to take a relativistic approach, you would have to believe that someone is at the door (in relative to you) and, someone is not at the door (in relative to your friend) which is ultimately self-refuting. This self-contradiction could be subconscious, mistaken reasoning, or contradictory intuitions. We shan’t go