Ethics is the part of philosophy that examines questions of morality and deals with moral principles. A more straightforward way to put it, ethics helps separate what is right from what is wrong. Ethics helps us answer questions like: If an event happens, then what would be the right thing to do? What would be the wrong one? What are the standards we should use to make these moral judgments? Trying to find an answer to these questions, especially the last one, philosophers are separated into two groups: one of them supporting ethical universalism and the other one supporting ethical relativism. Ethical universalism means that the ethical implications or consequences of an action will apply in exactly the same way to everybody. In ethical universalism,
…show more content…
Generally, these action would be still considered good in any time in history, in any country of the world and at any point in time. Therefore, they can be considered universally good actions. An example of this would be The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares certain rights that all people should have. It is universal, it applies the same to everybody, and denying these rights to people would be legally, ethically and morally wrong. Another example would be actions that are universally considered wrong like murder, torture or rape. There are certain problems with ethical universalism. If we want ethical universalism to apply to anything, then we need some kind of rules or implications to which everybody would agree. The problem with that is that it is almost impossible to achieve. People have different life experiences and cultures. What seems right to someone, it is very wrong in the eyes of someone …show more content…
One of the problems with ethical relativism is that right or wrong and justice are all relative. Going back to the slavery example, just because some people thought slavery was right that does not make it so. Moreover, if ethics change and have changed over time, slavery was ethical in America two hundred years ago. Now it is not. What if slavery becomes one more time acceptable at some point in the future? Who is then to decide what is right and what is not? Another problem with ethical relativism is how confusing the use of words and their meaning becomes in this perspective. Eating pork is ethically right for most people but it is ethically wrong for Muslims. Should not wrong be wrong and right be right for everyone? If we are to agree with and accept the culture of others, it is ethically right for others to do something because their culture indicates that they can do so, even though it is ethically wrong in our culture. If we follow this point of view, Hitler should have been left alone when killing and trying to kill all those innocent people because at the time and in the country’s culture they could do so.
To conclude, ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two quite different philosophical schools of thought. Ethical universalism means that the ethical implications or consequences of an action will apply in exactly the same way to everybody and that
Generally, these action would be still considered good in any time in history, in any country of the world and at any point in time. Therefore, they can be considered universally good actions. An example of this would be The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares certain rights that all people should have. It is universal, it applies the same to everybody, and denying these rights to people would be legally, ethically and morally wrong. Another example would be actions that are universally considered wrong like murder, torture or rape. There are certain problems with ethical universalism. If we want ethical universalism to apply to anything, then we need some kind of rules or implications to which everybody would agree. The problem with that is that it is almost impossible to achieve. People have different life experiences and cultures. What seems right to someone, it is very wrong in the eyes of someone …show more content…
One of the problems with ethical relativism is that right or wrong and justice are all relative. Going back to the slavery example, just because some people thought slavery was right that does not make it so. Moreover, if ethics change and have changed over time, slavery was ethical in America two hundred years ago. Now it is not. What if slavery becomes one more time acceptable at some point in the future? Who is then to decide what is right and what is not? Another problem with ethical relativism is how confusing the use of words and their meaning becomes in this perspective. Eating pork is ethically right for most people but it is ethically wrong for Muslims. Should not wrong be wrong and right be right for everyone? If we are to agree with and accept the culture of others, it is ethically right for others to do something because their culture indicates that they can do so, even though it is ethically wrong in our culture. If we follow this point of view, Hitler should have been left alone when killing and trying to kill all those innocent people because at the time and in the country’s culture they could do so.
To conclude, ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two quite different philosophical schools of thought. Ethical universalism means that the ethical implications or consequences of an action will apply in exactly the same way to everybody and that