Ethical Relativism and Moral Disagreement
Moral disagreement does not gives us reason to believe that ethical relativism is the correct metaethical theory. I defend this position by arguing that ethical relativism has several discrepancies and contradictions that undermined the idea that individuals, or societies define what morality is, based solely upon preference. The main downfalls of ethical relativism are that it makes moral mistakes “incapable” of happening, all morals are equal, you can never be unsure of yourself or your society, there can never be positive moral change, and there is an inability to allow true moral disagreement to exist.
Ethical revivalism can be broken down into two parts, there is cultural relativism and ethical …show more content…
If all moral beliefs are correct, and none rank above the other, wouldn’t that mean that moral beliefs, that would normally oppose each other, fall on the same level of morality? Effectively it is saying that the moral beliefs of the Hitler regime were just as “good” as Gandhi leading the Indian independence movement. This moral equality would eventually breed intolerance of moral beliefs amongst individuals and cultures. If ethical relativism is the correct metaethical theory, them theoretically you are saying that it is morally permissible to enslave human beings and immoral to enslave people. However both of the moral truth are not acceptable, and they will fight for …show more content…
Because ethical relativism is completely based on personal feelings it does not really make moral claims, instead it tells people their preference for something. An example of this is the statement: “child abuse is wrong”, but ethical relativism says this means “I disapprove of child abuse”. Instead of making a clear statement on what is immoral, it just states opinions. Ethical relativism boils moral claims down to statements that sound like “I prefer crunchy peanut butter over creamy peanut butter”. With moral claims based in ethical relativism you get moral truths that are both right and wrong and contradict each other. You can end up with one of two results, either you have no moral claims, or no moral disagreement. Relativist dismiss the idea of moral disagreements, even though it is the main selling point of ethical relativism. I believe that moral disagreements exist and in order to have a moral debate one must be able to make a moral claim based upon more than an opinion, however I do recognize that moral disagreements are not as wide spread as we think. I believe that many of our moral debates can be rooted in similar values, we simply have different ways of expressing
Moral disagreement does not gives us reason to believe that ethical relativism is the correct metaethical theory. I defend this position by arguing that ethical relativism has several discrepancies and contradictions that undermined the idea that individuals, or societies define what morality is, based solely upon preference. The main downfalls of ethical relativism are that it makes moral mistakes “incapable” of happening, all morals are equal, you can never be unsure of yourself or your society, there can never be positive moral change, and there is an inability to allow true moral disagreement to exist.
Ethical revivalism can be broken down into two parts, there is cultural relativism and ethical …show more content…
If all moral beliefs are correct, and none rank above the other, wouldn’t that mean that moral beliefs, that would normally oppose each other, fall on the same level of morality? Effectively it is saying that the moral beliefs of the Hitler regime were just as “good” as Gandhi leading the Indian independence movement. This moral equality would eventually breed intolerance of moral beliefs amongst individuals and cultures. If ethical relativism is the correct metaethical theory, them theoretically you are saying that it is morally permissible to enslave human beings and immoral to enslave people. However both of the moral truth are not acceptable, and they will fight for …show more content…
Because ethical relativism is completely based on personal feelings it does not really make moral claims, instead it tells people their preference for something. An example of this is the statement: “child abuse is wrong”, but ethical relativism says this means “I disapprove of child abuse”. Instead of making a clear statement on what is immoral, it just states opinions. Ethical relativism boils moral claims down to statements that sound like “I prefer crunchy peanut butter over creamy peanut butter”. With moral claims based in ethical relativism you get moral truths that are both right and wrong and contradict each other. You can end up with one of two results, either you have no moral claims, or no moral disagreement. Relativist dismiss the idea of moral disagreements, even though it is the main selling point of ethical relativism. I believe that moral disagreements exist and in order to have a moral debate one must be able to make a moral claim based upon more than an opinion, however I do recognize that moral disagreements are not as wide spread as we think. I believe that many of our moral debates can be rooted in similar values, we simply have different ways of expressing