The second form of ethical relativism is known as conventionalism: as mentioned previously, is the ethical position that there are no universally objective moral principles and that all moral principles obtain their validity from their acceptance by its culture (Fieser 46). The plights of morality here is that no one culture can ever have an improper ethical standpoint given that morality get its validation from the acceptance of that specific culture. That is to say that actions committed by a society against another cannot be ruled as being ethically wrong. Given this, other societies must be tolerant of other society’s morality. Pojman points out, if morality is dependent on society, then there is no way of critiquing a culture’s morality.
…show more content…
Which Pojamn rules as impossible through a subjective lens, then Pojman posits that conventionalism cannot possibly work to resolve cross-cultural issue through the lens of conventionalism (Fieser 49). He postulates that there is a better suited ethical theory. Which he affirms is moral objectivism, the view that there exists as least one moral principle that all societies and cultures can adhere to. Pojman attempts to prove that there is a universally valid moral principle that is binding on all rational agents and he posits that if an individual does not adhere to this principle, this individual is stupid and …show more content…
Base on this definition of objectivism there exists a universally common human nature and therefore a common moral principle that applies to all rational agents. Not to ignore the fact that there are variations in human nature across societies, but there still remain the seemingly instinctual pursuit of flourishment and survival. Pojman critique ethical relativism in all its forms and point out possible perversion which each ethical theory processes. First he analyzes and critique the diversity thesis. Making the point that it would be seemingly impossible to critique another culture. The reason being is because most cultures are one sided, they think that their culture is the only one that is just and rational. With that said, if two societies think they’re correct, they’ll never really flourish or live up to their full potential. Nevertheless, one can also see great similarities between the moral codes of various cultures. For example, every culture has a concept of murder, distinguishing this from execution, killing in war, and other justifiable
Which Pojamn rules as impossible through a subjective lens, then Pojman posits that conventionalism cannot possibly work to resolve cross-cultural issue through the lens of conventionalism (Fieser 49). He postulates that there is a better suited ethical theory. Which he affirms is moral objectivism, the view that there exists as least one moral principle that all societies and cultures can adhere to. Pojman attempts to prove that there is a universally valid moral principle that is binding on all rational agents and he posits that if an individual does not adhere to this principle, this individual is stupid and …show more content…
Base on this definition of objectivism there exists a universally common human nature and therefore a common moral principle that applies to all rational agents. Not to ignore the fact that there are variations in human nature across societies, but there still remain the seemingly instinctual pursuit of flourishment and survival. Pojman critique ethical relativism in all its forms and point out possible perversion which each ethical theory processes. First he analyzes and critique the diversity thesis. Making the point that it would be seemingly impossible to critique another culture. The reason being is because most cultures are one sided, they think that their culture is the only one that is just and rational. With that said, if two societies think they’re correct, they’ll never really flourish or live up to their full potential. Nevertheless, one can also see great similarities between the moral codes of various cultures. For example, every culture has a concept of murder, distinguishing this from execution, killing in war, and other justifiable