In this essay, I will discuss James Rachels’ article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, in which he criticizes the normative cultural relativism argument which is about how different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no single truth to define “truth” or a correct set of moral codes because the idea of right or wrong varies within cultures. Firstly I am going to explain what the cultural relativism argument is about and then present my assessment of Rachels’ critique regarding this argument from careful…
In "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. Do you think Goodman is right? Using specific examples, explore the challenges Goodman presents to relativism. Determine whether you think there are such universal moral requirements, and defend your answer in a well-argued three-page paper.…
Shaw gives an obvious and unconvincing example. He compares abortion in two different societies; it is absolutely wrong in Catholic Spain, but widely accepted in Japan. Most readers would agree that this occurs and abortion is a topic that the world will most likely never come to agreeing terms with. Therefore, relativism is actually significant in each culture. Cultural relativism is complicated in that a whole group of people within an area believe in what they've always been told. Shaw gives an excellent example about slavery in the south. Decades ago, it unfortunately existed and it was acceptable in that time period. However, now it is clearly immoral. A relativist would think that it is acceptable because it was part of the culture. It is not steady to keep changing morals through time. So, who distinguishes right from wrong in that whole society in the first place?…
The article “Some Moral Minima” by Lenn Goodman states many good arguments that something’s should be seen as moral wrong. I agree with his beliefs that he is discussing throughout this article. All members of a group should not be punished for their cultural differences. In this paper I will share and support my opinions of the arguments discussed in the article by Lenn Goodman.…
After reading “Some moral minima,” I must say I have to agree with Lenn Goodman’s opinions. He argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. Though they greatly reflect his relativism, I agree on the topics he chose are all wrong in the eyes of another culture’s morals and virtues. We as human beings, and the societies we constitute can be wrong. “Consent is a helpful marker, but neither necessary nor sufficient to legitimacy. Some whose interests are critically affected by our acts have no effectual say in our choices. Principles are principles; no norms delineating concretely, and uncompromisingly, wrong from right” (Goodman, 2010). I agree there should be universal moral requirements…
In his article Goodman gives solid examples of how something that is considered to be morally right in one cultural, would be wrong in another. Some of the topics that Goodman touches on are, genocide, hostage taking, slavery, polygamy, rape and female genital cutting (2010). Goodman argues that there are certain acts that are without a doubt considered to be wrong. While I do agree with his theory that acts such as incest, slavery, and rape (just to name a few) are wrong, there are factors that should be considered before an act is considered morally just or unjust. Relativism is one of the ways that certain acts can be viewed be other cultures without completely ruling the acts as right or wrong. “Relativism is the idea that one’s beliefs and values are understood in terms of one’s society, culture, or even one’s own individual values (Mosser, 2010). Therefore, by relativism acts like polygamy, female castration, terrorism and infanticide are example of acts that are considered wrong for most Americans but in the cultures that practice these acts they see nothing wrong…
Many people are lead to adopt Ethical Relativism because they believe that it justifies their view that one ought to be tolerant of the different behavior of people in other cultures. However, Ethical Relativism does not really justify tolerance at all. All around the world, there are different types of cultures, which have different ethical values that will be correct according to their cultures. Nevertheless, some people might argue about different cultures that have different moral codes that they can not accept; examples: polygamy and infanticide. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism proposes that we can stop the criticism and be more tolerant with other cultures. To illustrate, we could no longer say that custom of other societies…
The purpose of this essay is to tell you what I think about an author name Lenn Goodman, the author of ‘”Some Moral Minima”. In this essay I will explain what Lenn states and argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. And I will explain if agree with him or not.…
Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse objective moral realism. Rachels defines this as “a standard that might be reasonably used in thinking about any social practice whatever. We may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of people whose lives are affected by it.” That is the moral worth of an action is based upon how it contributes to the society from which it operates in.…
Moral Relativism is the thought that the moral beliefs held by individuals is influenced and dependent on the culture in which they live in considers tolerable. Hence, what is considered morally appropriate in a single society perhaps is perceived as immoral in a different society. In actuality they both maybe right as they have distinct creators resulting in different laws, diversity, and possibly religious views of each other. Ruth Benedict defends the theory of moral relativism in her article A Defense of Moral Relativism from The Journal of General Psychology. In contrast, William B. Irvine author of Confronting Relativism feels in a few swift examples people can be talked out of their views on moral…
In the “The Good Society”, Goodman, challenges relativism, in presenting the debate, that there are some things that are just wrong, no matter what. In other words, we are all held to a universal moral requirement. No matter what race, religion, ethnic background, sex, financial status we hold, or political stance, we as a human may be, or hold, we all have a moral duty to fulfill as human beings. Not only to ourselves, but to each other as well. Which points out one of the three main things Goodman suggests our human right to life.…
What one may believe is right and worthy in their own culture may seem taboo in another culture’s standards. This is because of the use of cultural relativism, which is the belief that something is good or wrong if and only if it is approved or disapproved in a given culture. Right and wrong values vary from society to society; therefore, there is no standard base to judge what is universally right or wrong between the different cultures. Because of this, societies may disagree about the morality of what is right and wrong. Gensler believes that if cultural relativism is true, then there are no right or wrong moral values within a culture’s belief, because objective truths can still exist.…
This premise of cultural relativism shows prefigure of moral relativism. Moral relativism can be generally grouped into three categories; (1) descriptive moral relativism, (2) normative moral relativism, and (3) meta-ethical moral relativism. Descriptive relativism, according to Frankena, is the idea ‘that the basic ethical beliefs of different people and societies are different and even conflicting’ [1973:109]. The second form of ethical relativism conceives the idea that ‘what is really right or good in the one case is not so in another. Such a normative principle seems to violate the requirements of consistency and universalization’[1973:109]. The last among the three reveals that ‘there is no objectively valid, rational way of justifying one against another; consequently, two conflicting basic…
Is there a clear difference between right and wrong? Well, it all depends on what one has been trained to believe. When answering this question one must include many factors, such as religious morals and values, environmental influences, society, and etc. One might believe that stealing to provide for their family is okay, but another knows that you do not steal, no matter what the circumstances may be because it is wrong. As with the given example, what one person may think is wrong, may be right to another person. Right and wrong are human values. We have to determine for ourselves what we believe to be right or wrong.…
When I am faced with an ethical dilemma I will often ask myself is this right or wrong, and how will this decision affect myself and others around me. The first case scenario that I chose in Group A is about a newspaper columnist who signed a contract with a newspaper chain. Several months later she is offered a position with another newspaper chain at a higher salary. Because she would prefer making more money, she notifies the first chain that she is breaking her contract. The courts will decide the legality of her action. But what of the morality? Did the columnist behave ethically? My response to this is that she did not behave ethically. This is a case of selfishness and greed. Of course everyone would prefer making more money, but a contract is a contract, Legal or not it is a binding agreement of one’s word. If the newspaper chain she was working for found another columnist that was willing to work for lesser pay than she did, she would not be pleased if the chain decided break her contract for their own benefit. She should have kept her word and completed the term of her contract. She could have gone to her superiors and requested a raise based on job performance if she wanted more money. Also, although it does not state this in the scenario, another newspaper chain would not have just offered her a job at a higher rate of pay unless she applied for the job. In my opinion, she initially broke the contract when she went looking for another job. If this columnist was unhappy with her job she should have brought her concerns to her supervisor and tried to work things out. After all she did sign a contract stating a promise of employment. Sekfishness and greed are both evil things that come out in a lot of people at some point in time. It is whether or not we choose to act on these feelings or not that will determine if we are good people or evil ones. Anyone knows that when you sign a contract or make a promise, the only right thing to do…