Benefits Of Moral Relativism Undermine Moral Confidence

Improved Essays
In this paper I will argue that moral relativism does undermine moral confidence and this is a benefit of the theory. The theory of relativism holds the beliefs that: moral truth is not out in the world waiting to be discovered, it is not universal, and that it is a product of history and culture. In turn morals in the theory of relativism are socially constructed ideals only holding value as long as they are part of a culture. The view that morals are only valuable within a cultural context is acceptable as there would be no moral value without culture. A similar example of this can be seen with the use of currency in cultures. The items used as currency within different cultures only have value because people within that culture have decided …show more content…
If morals are only true in the cultural context they are found in then individuals have no need to strongly defend those morals. People only face the obligation to be moral in accordance to their cultural norms as long as these systems serve the people. Viewing morals as nothing more than cultural norms promotes tolerance towards foreign viewpoints because viewing one 's own moral perspective not as an absolute truth but rather as simply the way things are done around here cause there to be no need to firmly defend one 's morals. The undermining of moral confidence caused by relativism is not a defect of the theory but rather a benefit because moral confidence isn 't always a beneficial. Confidence in an ideal can lead to arrogance. A person can have so much confidence in their viewpoint they then see their morals as superior to other moral systems. Arrogance can lead to intolerance of other moral systems. Viewing one 's own ideals as superior eliminates the possibility of considering others perspectives as they are perceived as inferior. Intolerance of foreign moral systems can lead to violence. Considering the use of violence to eliminate an opposing moral systems is easier to consider if that system is perceived as inferior to your own. A historical example of this occurring is during the crusades. During the crusades Muslims and Christians killed each other during massive bloody conflicts. …show more content…
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. People may vigorously defend cooperation between cultures and condemn uncooperative cultures. If people were to look at other intolerant cultures that are attempting to disrupt such cooperation between cultures they would be motivated to defend these varying non-universal values. They would defend non-universal values because they would understand that there is no one truth only moral system, only moral systems that severe or do not serve the human

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    This is because it is based on what the reasonable man finds acceptable for a community to tolerate. With this theory of how morality comes about would allow prejudice and disdain to run our society. Dworkin argues a different way of determining what is immoral for society and believes that emotion is not the way to run our society. Justification beyond what is acceptable for the community is how Dworkin argues how deciding what immorality is should come about. These justifications cannot come from prejudice.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As much as debunkers claim that evolution is not a Good Reason to believe in moral positions, it is also not a Good Reason to disbelieve them either. Who is to say that true moral beliefs are not what is most fit? Would it not make sense for objective morality to have characteristics that would aid in the survival of a community? Sure, evolution is bound to get off track a little bit, but here we must focus on degrees of reason. We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution.…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Particularism Vs Pluralism

    • 1444 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Instead of doing this, we pass judgment from the privacy of our own minds and condemn acts that we see as “immoral”. This is due to the idea that man-made moral guidelines on which to live a good life, is embedded in our psyche and we use them to live our everyday lives. However, we can argue that the embodiment of the “moral person” living based on moral guidelines is fundamentally idealistic. No one can be perfectly moral, and I believe that living a life based on multiple, conflicting moral principles does not increase the greater good of a person. Rather, what it does is confuse people about their morality during a particular act.…

    • 1444 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Glaucon Justice Analysis

    • 1584 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Glaucon demands that justice is not intrinsically valuable, but something we endure for the sake of the benefits it brings. He tells the myth of Gyges to provide the evidence that people think justice is rather a burden than good in itself. The point of this story is to show that if any human will have such ring, it will be perfectly in his best interests to always pick injustice over justice. Moreover, Glaucon claims that by nature, human beings are competitive and naturally they always want to make injustice. However, since in reality, there is no ring of Gyges, it is in human’s best interests to do justice, for otherwise they will end up in the chaos.…

    • 1584 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Where are we leaving our individual reason and critical thinking to improve ourselves? And the ability to criticize society norms and provoke changes for the good. Glensler also states that not because a norm is product of the culture, it is necessarily subjective. He also says that disagreement does not imply the absence of universal ethical norms. Finally, being tolerant regarding cultural differences does not mean that you are a cultural relativism.…

    • 1318 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    One theory that stems from morality is known as Cultural Relativism. This concept essentially states that moral codes are distinctive amongst different cultures. In other words, what is acceptable in one culture may horrify another and therefore a culture’s customs cannot be deemed “correct” or “incorrect”…

    • 1128 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Natural Law Theory

    • 1102 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I also think that the natural law theory doesn’t contain the best reasons on why someone would do something. To kill someone and then say that you were just staying loyal to your human nature would still be cruel and wrong on all levels and therefore, wouldn’t be a good reason. With the natural law theory, I don’t think think a reason could be properly justified. The theory simply states that our morality is based upon how we properly use the traits we were born with. It also says that we don’t need to find reasons or think twice about whether our actions stand behind good or bad reasons, as we just have to carry out what the majority have always carried out because that is essentially human…

    • 1102 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Cultural relativism says that to presume that our societal norms are superior to the societal norms of another culture is arrogant. Cultural relativism promotes open-mindedness. It tells us not to judge another culture based off of our own ideas of morality. However, while cultural relativism has some…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I would much rather people ponder the consequence of their actions, rather than if they have good intentions. Because when it comes to moral theories such as these isn’t the main goal to make sure that in the end everyone is happy and not make everyone think, self-righteously, that they are…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One example of how this claim does not support psychological egoism is through the case of strictly conscientious action. When someone desires something due to temptation and resists taking action, it is no longer desire that motivated this action; rather, it is their sense of duty that made them resist (Shafer-Landau, 2015). This means that the action no longer becomes part of self-interest because it does not benefit them. Another example of how opponents of psychological egoism will respond to this false claim would be through the motives of selfless people. It could be that our desire is to help people in need.…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics