Why Ethic is Relative
Moralism is understood as the values that makes a person become better according to the human nature. From practical experience, there are some moral values that are considered subjective as well as objective. The consideration of ethics as relative or absolute is quite controversial, given that different groups support either of these ideas. The concept of relativism holds that each culture has the right to determine what should be considered as moral or immoral, while absolutism is based on an assumption that there are some norms that are standard and can be applied to all cultures.1 The fact that there are no standard beliefs that should be applied in judging the wrongness as well as the rightness of actions in all …show more content…
Mishra, S. & Kumar, C. “Understanding diversity: A multicultural perspective”. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 19 no 9 (2014): 62.
3. Zuradzki, T. “Moral uncertainty in bioethical argumentation: A new understanding o the pro-life view on early human embryo”. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (2014): p. 444.
suggests that the ethical judgments surrounding the controversial issue of abortion are subjective and relative.
An Argument Based on Situational Differences
People and culture differ in significant way across times and spaces which lead to different circumstances and moral values. People make different decisions on a similar matter, depending on the prevailing conditions. This indicates the impossibility of universal morality. The same action may be morally wrong in one society but be morally right in another. From a relativist’s perspective, moral norms cannot be judged to be universally true since the underlying circumstances in which they are considered vary too much. For example, a moral relativist which it was told. Telling a lie, with the objective of saving life can be considered to be morally right, in spite of the fact that it is inconsistent with the expectations of the members of the society.4 For example, it would be immoral to tell a truth that will lead to the killing of the resident of a given village in a situation in which simple lie could misdirect the attackers and save …show more content…
Immigrants from Africa and Latin America support cultural beliefs that are totally different from the majority whites who live in the U.S. It would be difficult to help these different groups to coexist, if each one of them argues that where each of the groups preserves its belief system, but respective the cultural practices as well as the norms held by others. This idea supports an argument that morals should always be considered as relative, as opposed to being
Moralism is understood as the values that makes a person become better according to the human nature. From practical experience, there are some moral values that are considered subjective as well as objective. The consideration of ethics as relative or absolute is quite controversial, given that different groups support either of these ideas. The concept of relativism holds that each culture has the right to determine what should be considered as moral or immoral, while absolutism is based on an assumption that there are some norms that are standard and can be applied to all cultures.1 The fact that there are no standard beliefs that should be applied in judging the wrongness as well as the rightness of actions in all …show more content…
Mishra, S. & Kumar, C. “Understanding diversity: A multicultural perspective”. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 19 no 9 (2014): 62.
3. Zuradzki, T. “Moral uncertainty in bioethical argumentation: A new understanding o the pro-life view on early human embryo”. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (2014): p. 444.
suggests that the ethical judgments surrounding the controversial issue of abortion are subjective and relative.
An Argument Based on Situational Differences
People and culture differ in significant way across times and spaces which lead to different circumstances and moral values. People make different decisions on a similar matter, depending on the prevailing conditions. This indicates the impossibility of universal morality. The same action may be morally wrong in one society but be morally right in another. From a relativist’s perspective, moral norms cannot be judged to be universally true since the underlying circumstances in which they are considered vary too much. For example, a moral relativist which it was told. Telling a lie, with the objective of saving life can be considered to be morally right, in spite of the fact that it is inconsistent with the expectations of the members of the society.4 For example, it would be immoral to tell a truth that will lead to the killing of the resident of a given village in a situation in which simple lie could misdirect the attackers and save …show more content…
Immigrants from Africa and Latin America support cultural beliefs that are totally different from the majority whites who live in the U.S. It would be difficult to help these different groups to coexist, if each one of them argues that where each of the groups preserves its belief system, but respective the cultural practices as well as the norms held by others. This idea supports an argument that morals should always be considered as relative, as opposed to being