Objectivist Vs Relativists

Dr. Porter answers the question of the objectivity of ethics from two opposing viewpoints: the relativists and objectivists. Relativists argue that ethical standards hold validity only within their specific society and nothing is objectively good or bad, while objectivists maintain that some acts are wholly right and others are wholly wrong, regardless of the societal norm. A relativist viewpoint tends to encourage tolerance and humility, because a person knows that his or her values are not necessarily best and others’ ideals should be respected too. To back the idea with science, relativists invoke Einstein’s theory of relativity, because if space and time are relative then values certainly are as well. However, objectivists also claim scientific support, claiming that simply because people thought the earth was flat at one time does not make them right. Objectivists argue that changes in values can come like changes in scientific understanding: slavery was a norm but now it is known to be wrong. Another argument of objectivists is that the golden rule exists in many different religions and philosophies, seemingly proving that there are standards that all societies hold to be important. In the end, Dr. Porter identifies holes in relativism, because …show more content…
Porter seems to lean toward the objectivist viewpoint on ethical standards; therefore, he likely believes that morality can be taught. Objectivists acknowledge that what is considered acceptable has changed over time. Along with the example of slavery, the example that women, who used to be considered lesser than men, are now considered to deserve equality. Giving rights to minorities and women took years. Both women and minorities continue to fight for respect in America and around the world, where in some nations they still face extreme oppression. Because Dr. Porter used women’s rights and minorities’ rights as examples, he likely believes that morality can be taught but that it takes time and