Moral Beliefs: Relatief Or Practice Is Right Or Wrong?

Good Essays
It is a known fact that no matter what, people will disagree on moral matters. A matter that may be “wrong” according to one group can be “right” to another. When those with differing opinions meet, disagreement will happen. Philosophers have long theorized on how to reconcile between the different sides of a conflict on what is “right” or “wrong”. The question is, who is correct on the matter of whether a belief or practice is right or wrong then? In a broader sense, how do we determine if something is right or wrong? Some theorists, like James Rachels, subscribe to the belief that what is right or wrong is purely relative to each culture and there is no universal rightness or wrongness. Others, like J.L. Mackie, argue on a more level that …show more content…
He contests relativism by stating that such a view is ridiculous primarily because of the wide range of immoral acts “X” could possibly be. He gives the practice of human sacrifice as an example and calls into question the dubiousness of moral relativity in such a situation. According to moral relativity even if “we” were to disagree on such a practice, if that society practices the act (Bernard citing the Ashanti tribe) approves of it, then we have no place in interfering with the tribe. Williams also points out that any society must have a sort of universal moral standard for it to even exist. He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals.(Williams, 21) Rachels’ relativism argument and Williams’ counter argument are examples of philosophies without a universal moral truth and an argument that debases it. The case of Rachels’ relativism is a little strange in that, while the theory claims to be spreading tolerance of other cultures, the lack of a universal standard to base the moral judgements upon brings up the question of how one would judge their own moral standards. This is especially potent in cases where a culture permits acts such as conquest and genocide-acts that obviously will bring harm to others. The Nazi regime is a prime example of this. Relativism’s lack of a universal moral standard becomes very contradictory in this sense. No matter which view is taken, whether or not one believes in the existence of a universal moral truth is essential to furthering an understanding of morality. The existence of one provides a standard for others to be judged against but the belief that there isn’t one could also be a better proponent of tolerance between cultures. The existence of a universal moral truth is essential in

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    However, it holds morality itself accountable for its worldwide inconsistencies and intangibility. Rachels and others may argue against it and they’re points are valid but it remains unfitting to judge the morality of one culture using the framework of…

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This cannot be the other way around for example a difference in moral concepts is the practice of monogamy. After it is well established that the behavior is appropriate it would become really hard to challenge the norm if that is approved. If we accept this then instead of moral values being objective we accept them as a consequence of a social framework. Mackie’s attack on objective moral values ends rapidly. In some cases cultures adopt a moral code that violates most of the ideas of morality.…

    • 550 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    No one culture is right or wrong. I would imagine that someone might say, well how can you have two cultures who are both right in their rightness/wrongness. If one culture is right how can it be determined who is right? I do follow along with the idea cultural relativism, why does anyone culture have to be right? If one culture is right in one thing than doesn’t that mean that other cultures are wrong?…

    • 1526 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moral relativists such as David Wong and Gilbert Harman have provided a more sophisticated version of moral relativism which mitigated some flaws of the inaugural and naïve form which Rachel argued against. Cultural relativism is also a relevant theory to explain the extreme cases of disagreements in our world. However, there is still invalidity and shortcomings of the cultural relativism argument that hinders moral progress, or deteriorate the view about morality into nihilistic grounds. Hence it is still essential to maintain some moral truths as objective instead of accepting the theory in…

    • 1886 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Their cultural framework or belief system did not matter, because the intrinsic nature of the act was immoral. If morality is relative, and every culture has its own socially constructed framework of right and wrong, should we accept the holocaust ,cultures that practice infanticide or genital mutilation as moral because it is relative to their culture? No, instead such cultures ought to be educated because their worldview could be incoherent, which is why the morality anchored to it has been erroneously taken. A worldview is the lens through which you ultimately look at reality, a set of assumptions or assertions made through which you look at every decisions that shape your values. The worldview (foundation) is the reason why morality seems subjective on the surface, but in actual fact the…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The evolutionary story suggests that our moral beliefs evolved organically to select for what would keep a community alive. That our morals do not approach an objective truth, but are merely adaptively fit. This lends to an argument that since we are not evolved to know the truth, our morals may be totally invalid, and so we cannot rationally believe them. This argument that we cannot trust our morals is flawed. The debunker claims that since evolution selects for fitness rather than moral truth, we cannot trust our moral beliefs to be objective, and that we must require a Good Reason to back up all our moral beliefs.…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example, Charles Taylor, a philosopher, argues that utilitarianism has been a severe distortion of our understanding of our moral thinking. The main argument from Taylor in his work, The Diversity of Goods, is that Utilitarianism was not able to grasp every moral concept or problem. Taylor essentially argued that Utilitarianism contained various errors in its ethical theories. Taylor stated that “one of the big illusions which grows from either of these [formalism and utilitarianism] reductions is the belief that there is a single consistent domain of the ‘moral’, that there is one set of considerations, or mode of calculation, which determines what we ought ‘morally’ to do (Taylor 132).” Taylor highlights that Utilitarianism only has one system of moral codes that deems whether something is right or wrong. Within that statement, Taylor is saying that there are flaws that can produced from that one dimensional view of morality.…

    • 1852 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to David Hume, morality is something that is unable to be created via reason alone. Primarily since because ideologies are incapable of motivating us enough to act. As result, according to Hume, morality comes from emotions. Our emotions make the judgment on what is right or wrong, and that leads us to approve or disapprove of the act. We may reason why exactly or the many different scenarios where an action or duty may appear moral at first glance, what W.D.…

    • 1013 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Objectivism states that some moral claims are objectively true. One big difference between objectivism and nihilism is that objectivism depends on process of elimination rather than actual merits. It says that nihilism, objectivism, or relativism has to be true before eliminating nihilism and relativism as being false. This leaves only objectivism standing, so proponents say it must be true. While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cultural relativism says all one has to do is check if their action is in agreement with their societal code to determine if their action is right or wrong. But what if their societal codes are wrong? “Cultural Relativism not only forbids us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it also stops us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 34). Rachels final argument against cultural relativism is that it destroys the idea of moral progress and social change. We could not say that Martin Luther King, Jr. changed society for the better as that would be judging the social standards of another time.…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays