What is an Essay?
Descriptive[ edit ] Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
Descriptive relativists do not necessarily advocate the tolerance of all behavior in light of such disagreement; that is to say, they are not necessarily normative relativists. Likewise, they do not necessarily make any commitments to the semantics, ontologyor epistemology of moral judgement; that is, not all descriptive relativists are meta-ethical relativists.
Descriptive relativism is a widespread position in academic fields such as anthropology and sociologywhich simply admit that it is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in play in all historical and cultural circumstances.
Meta-ethical[ edit ] Meta-ethical moral relativism is unpopular among philosophers; many are quite critical of it,[ citation needed ] though there are several contemporary philosophers who support it.
He argues in his work Folkways that what people consider right and wrong is shaped entirely - not primarily - by the traditions, customs, and practices of their culture.
Meta-ethical relativists are, first, descriptive relativists: This view contrasts with moral universalismwhich argues that, even though well-intentioned persons disagree, and some may even remain unpersuadable e.
Normative[ edit ] Normative moral relativists believe not only the meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do. They argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.
Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises. In other words, normative relativism may find it difficult to make a statement like "we think it is moral to tolerate behaviour" without always adding "other people think intolerance of certain behaviours is moral".
Philosophers like Russell Blackford even argue that intolerance is, to some degree, important. As he puts it, "we need not adopt a quietism about moral traditions that cause hardship and suffering. Nor need we passively accept the moral norms of our own respective societies, to the extent that they are ineffective or counterproductive or simply unnecessary".
We can also criticize other cultures for failing to pursue even their own goals effectively. The moral relativists may also still try to make sense of non-universal statements like "in this country, it is wrong to do X" or even "to me, it is right to do Y".
History[ edit ] Moral relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years. For example, the ancient Jaina Anekantavada principle of Mahavira c.
The Greek historian Herodotus c. Various other ancient philosophers also questioned the idea of an objective standard of morality. In the early modern era Baruch Spinoza — notably held that nothing is inherently good or evil. He distinguished between matters of fact and matters of value, and suggested that moral judgments consist of the latter, for they do not deal with verifiable facts obtained in the world, but only with our sentiments and passions.
But Hume regarded some of our sentiments as universal. He famously denied that morality has any objective standard, and suggested that the universe remains indifferent to our preferences and our troubles. He emphasized the need to analyze our moral values and how much impact they may have on us.
The problem with morality, according to Nietzsche, is that those who were considered "good" were the powerful nobles who had more education, and considered themselves better than anyone below their rank.
Thus, what is considered good is relative. A "good man" is not questioned on whether or not there is a "bad", such as temptations, lingering inside him and he is considered to be more important than a man who is considered "bad" who is considered useless to making the human race better because of the morals we have subjected ourselves to.
But since what is considered good and bad is relative, the importance and value we place on them should also be relative. He proposed that morality itself could be a danger. Nietzsche believes that this transcendence also had a parallel growth in Christianitywhich prioritized life-denying moral qualities such as humility and obedience through the church.
Anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict — have cautioned observers against ethnocentricism —using the standards of their own culture to evaluate their subjects of study. Benedict said that transcendent morals do not exist—only socially constructed customs do see cultural relativism ; and that in comparing customs, the anthropologist "insofar as he remains an anthropologist To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values could exist.
This led some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs.
The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist Edward Westermarck — ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism.
Views on meta-ethical relativism[ edit ].Video: Arguments For & Against Moral Relativism Moral relativism is just one of many philosophical arguments about right or wrong, and so it has many supporters and many opponents.
Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.
The nation’s current post-truth moment is the ultimate expression of mind-sets that have made America exceptional throughout its history. Leftist professors are waging a war against America and teaching our young people to hate this country, and many students today refuse to tolerate other perspectives.
A Quick-and-Dirty Argument Against Moral Relativism Effectively, we can say, few relativists can remain relativists when they move from the calm realm of theory to that of practical realm of action where our roles as practitioners and evaluators comes into prominence.
The moral relativists wrongly respond to our fallibilism, the. Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration.
There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism; rather each point of view has its own truth. The major categories of relativism vary in their degree of scope and controversy.
Moral relativism encompasses the differences in moral .