James Rachel's Essay 'Morality Is Not Relative'
11346155
Ethical Relativism 1/31/13
Is Ethics universal? Is it wrong to steal from someone regardless of what the culture you are in says on the matter? What about funeral customs? Is there a right or wrong way to deal with the bodies of those who have died? Some philosophers believe that there is no universal right or wrong and that the correct way to do things is based on what the morals of individual cultures say. Others, such as James Rachels, believe that there is a universal code of ethics that transcends the moral codes of individual cultures. In his essay, “Morality is Not Relative”, Rachels discusses ethical relativism, or as he calls it “Cultural Relativism”, and the logical problems that are associated with this code.
Cultural …show more content…
It has its premise and conclusion like all logical arguments do. Its premise says that different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, it concludes, that because of the varying moral codes, there can be no objective moral truth. Different cultures consider different acts to be moral and immoral and not all cultures will necessarily have the same opinions on all matters. Rachels objects to this argument by pointing out that the conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premise. The fact that cultures disagree on an ethical matter does not therefore mean that a definite code of ethics cannot or does not exist. It could be that “the members of some societies might simply be wrong” (Rachels, 48). To make the point clearer, Rachels uses the example of the Earth being flat. Some people in less advanced cultures believe that the Earth is flat. We believe from our observation and science that the Earth is spherical. Does it follow that just because we disagree on the matter that there can be no objective truth to it? No, it does not follow. Simply because there is disagreement over something does not mean that there is no truth in the
Ethical Relativism 1/31/13
Is Ethics universal? Is it wrong to steal from someone regardless of what the culture you are in says on the matter? What about funeral customs? Is there a right or wrong way to deal with the bodies of those who have died? Some philosophers believe that there is no universal right or wrong and that the correct way to do things is based on what the morals of individual cultures say. Others, such as James Rachels, believe that there is a universal code of ethics that transcends the moral codes of individual cultures. In his essay, “Morality is Not Relative”, Rachels discusses ethical relativism, or as he calls it “Cultural Relativism”, and the logical problems that are associated with this code.
Cultural …show more content…
It has its premise and conclusion like all logical arguments do. Its premise says that different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, it concludes, that because of the varying moral codes, there can be no objective moral truth. Different cultures consider different acts to be moral and immoral and not all cultures will necessarily have the same opinions on all matters. Rachels objects to this argument by pointing out that the conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premise. The fact that cultures disagree on an ethical matter does not therefore mean that a definite code of ethics cannot or does not exist. It could be that “the members of some societies might simply be wrong” (Rachels, 48). To make the point clearer, Rachels uses the example of the Earth being flat. Some people in less advanced cultures believe that the Earth is flat. We believe from our observation and science that the Earth is spherical. Does it follow that just because we disagree on the matter that there can be no objective truth to it? No, it does not follow. Simply because there is disagreement over something does not mean that there is no truth in the