The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism By James Rachel

1474 Words 6 Pages
As I read the “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” I learned some of the views of James Rachel. This article has a section on moral progress and its doubts. This is where I learned about James Rachel doubting cultural relativism. In this article James uses women rights as the topic of discussion. It talks about how things are changing for the better for women rights. This however can not be true based on the cultural relativism theory. In cultural relativism it states, how do we have the rights to say which was better? What makes us think we have made progress? It is ultimately unjust for us to judge, or be intolerant of the culture in the culture relativism theory. We ultimately cannot compare the different decades of women rights if we …show more content…
Throughout the readings I found utilitarianism do be defined as so. Utilitarianism is the optimal happiness or well being for the greatest number of people possible. Utilitarianism is ultimately the process of maximizing happiness. As I watched the video, "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER,” it had many complex scenarios where it challenged the thoughts of utilitarianism. The scenario in the video dealing with the trolley car is what I will be discussing. In the first scenario say you are the trolley car driver. You are going down the tracks and there are five people that you will hit and kill, or you can turn the wheel and kill one person on the other set of tracks. What would you do? If one used the concept of utilitarianism in this scenario shouldn’t they turn the wheel? They would be saving five lives, but killing one. In the definition of utilitarianism it states how you must look out for the well being of the most amount of people possible. This scenario many people do choose to turn the wheel. This next scenario is when the concept of utilitarianism is really challenged. In the video the scenario changes, where now you are not the driver of the trolley car, but a bystander of the trolley car. You are still able to help because you are on a bridge over the tracks. You can let the trolley car hit and kill the five people, or push a fat man sitting on the bridge which ultimately will stop the trolley car but kill the fat man. Would you push the fat man …show more content…
Then I think it truly dawned on me how there really is not a morally right answer. I can agree with McMahan and his thoughts in a lot of ways. I really liked how he is able to describe both sides of this situation. Are children really a responsible threat in war? This question has so many factors and moral dilemmas involved. The war may be unjust, the kids may not be voluntary fighting, and there are just so many different scenarios and factors that alter this question. To learn and hear McMahans thoughts have allowed for my thoughts to become more clear. I can now say I realize how children are non responsible threats in war. The many factors should not make them a threat or responsible for their actions in the war. I can also now say that child soldiers are a responsible threat in wars. Children do have a moral compass and they are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. I am ultimately leaving this question with no precise answer. I am leaving this question with a broader perspective on my own thoughts and my philosophical views. This question has helped me to look at a question from both angels and not just pick sides based on my views of many issues. In conclusion, I think philosophy is really important to challenge oneself and ones own thought

Related Documents