ETHICAL (MORAL) RELATIVISM
RUNNING HEADING: ETHICAL (MORAL) RELATIVISM
Ethical (Moral) Relativism
Exploring Kohlberg’s stance on Ethical Relativism
JebbehG
Ethics in Contemporary Society | PHI101 A01
July 17, 2013
Introduction
Presently, Americans are comfortable relating ethics to individuality. Often times, American citizens expresses their right of freedoms to enhance their own sense of ethics or relativity. In defining relativism, moral principles are a matter of personal feelings and individual preference. As for individual moral relativism, figuring out what is moral and immoral in specific circumstances differs according to the person. On another note, moral relativists have a disbelief in universal truths or common law.
This essay will examine and highlight major details about problems surrounding individual moral relativism and cultural moral relativism. It will reflect post-modern and modern methods of belief in order to exhibit its valuableness in ethical decision-making in overcoming problems (Owen, 2011). In particular, it argues that abstract theories of either individual or subjective moral relativism are fruitless for understanding humans. What's more, it tends to limit humans to egocentric people or hamper the development of distinctiveness through division and relativism. It is disputed that innovativeness excludes other styles of understanding. It utters reverence and celebrates the variance; it has rendered the pursuit for any kind of meaning inaudible (Reno, 2012). To bypass these restrictions and to extend the resistance of ethical relativism this article draws substantially from the research of Lawrence Kohlberg. He is a well-known psychologist that is recognized for the moral stages of development. Moreover, his research theory moves closer by claiming cultural relativists are individuals trapped in the conventional stage of ethical development (Garz, 2010). This ethical development model greets and enriches narrative
Ethical (Moral) Relativism
Exploring Kohlberg’s stance on Ethical Relativism
JebbehG
Ethics in Contemporary Society | PHI101 A01
July 17, 2013
Introduction
Presently, Americans are comfortable relating ethics to individuality. Often times, American citizens expresses their right of freedoms to enhance their own sense of ethics or relativity. In defining relativism, moral principles are a matter of personal feelings and individual preference. As for individual moral relativism, figuring out what is moral and immoral in specific circumstances differs according to the person. On another note, moral relativists have a disbelief in universal truths or common law.
This essay will examine and highlight major details about problems surrounding individual moral relativism and cultural moral relativism. It will reflect post-modern and modern methods of belief in order to exhibit its valuableness in ethical decision-making in overcoming problems (Owen, 2011). In particular, it argues that abstract theories of either individual or subjective moral relativism are fruitless for understanding humans. What's more, it tends to limit humans to egocentric people or hamper the development of distinctiveness through division and relativism. It is disputed that innovativeness excludes other styles of understanding. It utters reverence and celebrates the variance; it has rendered the pursuit for any kind of meaning inaudible (Reno, 2012). To bypass these restrictions and to extend the resistance of ethical relativism this article draws substantially from the research of Lawrence Kohlberg. He is a well-known psychologist that is recognized for the moral stages of development. Moreover, his research theory moves closer by claiming cultural relativists are individuals trapped in the conventional stage of ethical development (Garz, 2010). This ethical development model greets and enriches narrative
References: Quintelier, K. J. P., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2012). Varying versions of moral relativism: the philosophy and psychology of normative relativism. Biology & Philosophy, 27(1), 95+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA331807457&v=2.1&u=oran95108&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w Reno, R. (2012). Relativism 's moral mission. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, (222), 3+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA283945645&v=2.1&u=oran95108&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w Owen, H. M. (2011). Bakhtinian thought and the defence of narrative: overcoming universalism and relativism. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 7(2), 136+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA276808895&v=2.1&u=oran95108&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w Garz, Detlef. (2010). Lawrence Kohlberg--an introduction. Reference & Research Book News. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA241135780&v=2.1&u=oran95108&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w Klikauer, T. (2011). Ethics of the ILO: Kohlberg 's Universal Moral Development scale. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 1(2), 33. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA260922444&v=2.1&u=oran95108&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w