Aspects Of Objectivism And Cultural Relativism

Great Essays
Every ethical statement can be categorized based on how the statement relates to the popular beliefs, cultural beliefs, and personal beliefs. This can be better described as ‘metaethics’ which is a second-order philosophical analysis that dives into the nature, meaning, and justification of ethical statements (Gerard). Metethics involves thinking about thinking, and it does so by making questioning statements. Typically it asks: “how do we know that a given normative statement is ‘true’? We have to rely on intuition, or direct insight of apprehension without proof? Does a normative statement describe empirical reality in some way? Or does it merely reflect the psychological and emotional state of an individual? Finally, if we grant that there …show more content…
Objectivism utilizes universal reason at the base of a particular moral statement, but understands that there are some circumstances where those reasons are not applicable. This type of view is one that I find to be the most reasonable and widely acceptable but others. It is widely known that killing in general is an impermissible action, but there are situation where it becomes necessary such as to defend your own life. Although reason says it is not acceptable to kill, obectivism know that there are certain circumstances where one must kill for to protect themselves or for the greater-good. Cultural relativism, to me is a more passive point of view, where one understands that they cannot truly understand the beliefs of another culture thus it would be wrong to claim their actions are impermissible based on their own cultural views. Although, this can only relate to situations where basic humans rights are being upheld. There are situations where human rational can begin to conflict with such a view, and one can consider a culture’s view to be morally impermissible. If an entire culture believes it is acceptable to kill off another culture because their beliefs conflict, it could be considered morally impermissible. These are similar to the way I examine situations before I consider them permissible or

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Human beings are rational creatures that would intensitivity defend themselves. A Human Being would have no reason to place tolerance toward someone else 's morals over their own safety. For example society deems it immoral to kill other people but will deem it as an understandable action if it was done to protect oneself. The undermining of moral confidence that relativism can cause serves only to ensure that people do not approach a situation believing that they are morally superior but rather approach it with an open mind. Moreover, it is not clear people are less motivated about non-universal values beliefs.…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The good consequence produced may be the best option for the person committing murder, however we know that killing someone, no matter the reason, isn’t morally right. We know this because it’s a universal moral rule. Another consequentialist may argue that the Deontological Theories are flawed in that they don’t include utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism that focuses on maximizing happiness and welfare (7-8). Utilitarianism suggests that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends solely on how they affect happiness or welfare.…

    • 1076 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Capital Punishment Ethics

    • 1000 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Tolerance “implies a universal duty to respect others, regardless of how we personally feel” (Boss, 2014, pg. 115). A murderer would be considered a person who does not deserve tolerance, however it is our moral duty to respect humans. A person who has done this action has their own reasons, and they may have the inability to recognize that their reasons are immoral. Does this mean that others should condemn them to death?…

    • 1000 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Doctrine of Double Effect is a moral principle that gives us the ability to show the difference between the harmful effects of an action that is intended and the harmful effects of an action that is foreseen but unintended. The Doctrine of Double Effect says that it is sometimes permissible, when the end we are trying to achieve is good, to bring about as a foreseen consequence of an action what would be impermissible to bring about if it were directly intended. This means that it is morally wrong to go around intentionally killing people. Actions that we take with the intention of harming someone is wrong but at times, in certain circumstances, we can sometimes take actions that the end effect results in killing someone. For this to be considered morally acceptable it must agree with two things; first the end we trying to achieve must be good and second the harmful effect is foreseen but not intended.…

    • 1473 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Cultural relativism says all one has to do is check if their action is in agreement with their societal code to determine if their action is right or wrong. But what if their societal codes are wrong? “Cultural Relativism not only forbids us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it also stops us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 34). Rachels final argument against cultural relativism is that it destroys the idea of moral progress and social change. We could not say that Martin Luther King, Jr. changed society for the better as that would be judging the social standards of another time.…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Deontological Analysis

    • 962 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Even though telling the truth will get Ann killed, it is morally wrong for deontologists to lie. I don’t agree with this kind of reasoning, because deontologist don’t weigh out their consequences. Consequently, this person is no better than the Nazi soldiers. They are now contributing to a killing, and if you had the chance to save a life wouldn’t you take it? Deontologist also say to act with the thought of your decision to be a universal law.…

    • 962 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Likewise, by not having the capacity of suffering make inanimate objects unimportant, since we grant such importance. Utilitarians agreed that species membership is morally irrelevant. (2014 The Fundaments of Ethics, p.131) In other word, this means that moral community do not requires to be part of a specific specie in order to be part of it. Some utilitarian have developed an important and controversial argument called The Argument from Marginal Cases. This argument establishes that it is immoral to kill, harm and eat marginal human beings.…

    • 880 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In each category similarities can be seen but there are also great differences. From the moralist standpoint suicide is viewed as crime against humanity. “For moralist, protecting life and preventing suicide is a moral obligation” (Onkay Ho, 2014). Since this perspective views preventing suicide as a moral obligation one would infer that according to this perspective suicide attempts and thoughts would be considered immoral or in other words a “sin”. The second perspective, libertarian, views suicide as a basic human right.…

    • 1370 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While normally we would look at lying to a friend as morally wrong, if we are lying to protect their feelings and the overall net result is positive, then Act Utilitarianism supports lying. Lastly, Act Utilitarianism support moral flexibility. While many ethical theories have hard rules about never acting in certain ways, Act Utilitarian find that it is immoral to be bound by a rule if the net result of breaking that rule is for the positive benefit. The example Shafer-Landau gives is the Donner Party, where cannibalism enabled the survival of people who would have…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Therefore, moral norms differ from one group to another. What this argument states that social approval determine what is good and what is bad, a kind of social construction. Since those moral standards are going to vary from culture to culture, they cannot be objective. For instance, if I kill someone and killing is allowed in my group then this is not wrong. However, if my group disapprove killing, then I am doing something wrong.…

    • 1318 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays