In this essay I plan to clearly summaries the philosophical arguments of Benedict - Morality Is Relative, Rachel - Morality Is Not Relative, Kant - The Moral Law, and Mill - Utilitarianism. All of these arguments contain different theories of human nature being swayed by laws and morality. I will categorize which arguments focus on the absolutist view, which holds that there is exactly one right answer to everything. As well as labeling which argument leaning to a more objective side, where all forms affirm the universal validity of some moral principal. This then proposes a cultural relativism principle, meaning there are no universally valid moral principles, but all moral principles are valid relative to cultural or individual choice. These
…show more content…
Her conclusion was based on the principles that certain cultures and societies can determine ones moral beliefs. Since culture is such a divers system the morals of certain cultures also may vary. (467) This argument leans toward a more objective views where some cultures have a universal trend of having unique moral views. The social system is like a work of art that has different themes that turn into cultural tendencies that create a system where certain people live and believes greatly that morals support their actions. Benedict explains that that we need to consider why we think things to be abnormal or normal behavior. This is a great example of a deontological theory, since a culture can determine what is seen as a right or wrong action. One cultural practice might seem completely abnormality to us but to that culture it is absolutely normal. …show more content…
His objective theory affirms there is a universal validity of some moral principles. In studying different cultures such as Greek, Callatians, and Eskimos; he saw many differences but also universal morals in all cultures. He discovered that all cultures value telling the truth, caring for the young, and believed in not harming one another. These three principles are vital to a cultures ability to survive. Rachel points out in his argument three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism. The first, states that we must not distinguish “customs of other societies as morally inferior to our own”. (471) Secondly, we can determine what is right or wrong by the standards of our society. Lastly, “moral progress is called into doubt”. Therefore, if progress means making things better by replacing old ways, then those social standards are able to change as well. This makes the idea of cultural relativism implausible according to Racheal because then cultural morals can then be changed. However, he still believes in the teleological theory where the answer to labeling an action as right or wrong is sometimes a nonmoral value.
Her conclusion was based on the principles that certain cultures and societies can determine ones moral beliefs. Since culture is such a divers system the morals of certain cultures also may vary. (467) This argument leans toward a more objective views where some cultures have a universal trend of having unique moral views. The social system is like a work of art that has different themes that turn into cultural tendencies that create a system where certain people live and believes greatly that morals support their actions. Benedict explains that that we need to consider why we think things to be abnormal or normal behavior. This is a great example of a deontological theory, since a culture can determine what is seen as a right or wrong action. One cultural practice might seem completely abnormality to us but to that culture it is absolutely normal. …show more content…
His objective theory affirms there is a universal validity of some moral principles. In studying different cultures such as Greek, Callatians, and Eskimos; he saw many differences but also universal morals in all cultures. He discovered that all cultures value telling the truth, caring for the young, and believed in not harming one another. These three principles are vital to a cultures ability to survive. Rachel points out in his argument three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism. The first, states that we must not distinguish “customs of other societies as morally inferior to our own”. (471) Secondly, we can determine what is right or wrong by the standards of our society. Lastly, “moral progress is called into doubt”. Therefore, if progress means making things better by replacing old ways, then those social standards are able to change as well. This makes the idea of cultural relativism implausible according to Racheal because then cultural morals can then be changed. However, he still believes in the teleological theory where the answer to labeling an action as right or wrong is sometimes a nonmoral value.