Questions for the 2nd Writing Assignment

rodriguez · Posts: 4 Join date: 2008-11-26

The belief that everything is relative depending on whose seeing it is dangerous and chaotic.

We need standards to live peacefully.

We follow certain laws to live peacefully.

Without a universal truth chaos will reign.

First problem that the relativism theory needs to answer is how does it define a society? We should all remember that each person is unique in terms of behavior and sets of values and thus making everyone relatively different from one another. So how could one form a society if everyone is different?

Of course, relativist would argue that societies define themselves, but without a criteria for membership this answer would remain vague and empty.

Second, how would relativist explain the phenomenon that despite thousands of years ago, people and tribes and civilizations all across the world value life, family and property so much that they are willing to wage wars once one of these are threatened?

This phenomenon clearly shows that there is an instinct inside every person in this planet and that these instincts are common thus creating a universal truth possible. We value the same things long time ago and until now and irrespective of what culture you came from, you will value life, family, and property somehow.

Third, relativism undermines to justify ones existence. Since morality is subjective, it is then alright to kill anyone as long as it is right in the perception of the perpetuator.

It won't take a philosopher to tell that this is such a crazy subjectivity.

If relativism is true, then courts and laws are non-sense. Police and military is just a waste of money for everyone is right as long as they think they are.

Everyone is right, everyone can do whatever he/she wants.

It must be such a crazy world to live in, so chaotic.

Raval · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-24

Ethical Relativism is the view that morality is relative to anyone. It can be an individualistic ethical relativism where in what is right or wrong for me may be entirely different from what is right or wrong for you. Cultural ethical relativism on the other hand, asserts that morality is based on the diverse cultural norms of each society.

To be honest I’m not really a big fan of ethical relativism, I think that if we are not going to judge as to what constitutes rightness or wrongness then the whole morality will be in a blur. We are not allowed to be make verdict because simply, morality is relative. What Stalin did was right, or even what Hitler did was also acceptable (or we may believe of course that what these people did is down-right unethical but It does not matter because there can be no argument about what is right and wrong, no matter how sure we are that they have actually done something wrong), ethical relativism is the pathway toward deviancy. Anyone could easily justify any wrong deed by saying that “well, this is how we do things” or “in our own culture, this is what we do.” I’m not sure if this is true, but in case it is.. then its just sad… the World will be in a distress.

Second note, the relative nature of morality would also make it difficult for us to compare morality, or to make a long story short, we are not even allowed to compare morality, period. Since, there will be no standards for conduct then comparing each diverse form of morality will be impossible.

Final point, what’s problematic about not accepting that morality is relative though, is the quest for the universal morality. If we say that it is not relative then what is absolute morality in the first place??? (Please, not this question, it is just too hard) With all honesty, I don’t know how to answer this question. But just because we don’t have an absolute standard right now, means that we should stop finding one. I still won’t accept ethical relative on the basis of denying an absolute one, that reason won’t suffice.

*I am sorry for posting this reply late, my wireless smartbro connection became smartbroken this past few days. But its ok now, it got fixed this morning.

shandi · Subject: answers to assign number 2 Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:26 am

1. Relativism is one of the major challenges to ethics. It is the view that there are no universal moral truths and that morality is relative. It is based on the assumption that morality is universal and that there exist a universal moral truth that is valid for everyone regardless of culture and time. The belief that there are no universal moral truths is problematic. For one, relativist fail to distinguish between a principle applying to everyone and a principle being accepted by everyone. Universal moral truths are applies to everyone. For example, the rule of law. If for instance you violated a law without knowing that there exists a certain law you are still going to be sanctioned/punished. If a person fail to make a distinction between morality being applied and morality being accepted then morality would be pointless. There would be no space to improve because it allows individuals to pre-select the things that are acceptable and applicable to him/her. Therefore, the individual is always morally good and correct based from his/her own standard. Second, if there are no universal moral truths, there could be also be no moral principles. For a moral principle to be true and to exist it should be shared by other individuals. "Principles that are not universal are not moral." Third, relativism would argue that morality is relative to the individual or to the culture. Subjectivism is the view that "ethics is only a matter of opinion of what people think. The problem with this view is that people have different reasons for holding holding such opinions. When people make opinion about something, it is not an opinion per se but it also involves some reasons. Also, subjectivism can't explain when two people disagree since everything is all but an opinion and there are no right and wrong opinion.Technically, you can't say that two people disagree about something even if they have differing opinions. Also, if opinion is all there is in ethics then why do we have to bother exchanging opinions or discuss subject afterall? That would be impractical since a person's opinion is alwayscorrect and enough for him/her. Another variable of subjectivism is called sophisticated subjectivism.Subjectivism holds the view that "an ethical utterance is not a statement of an opinion,but an expression of attitude of the speaker. Unlike simple subjectivism, sophisticated subjectivism believes that two people disagree not by stating their personal statements but by their attitudes towards something. By doing this, they show what they feel without actually saying what it is. Moreover, by expressing your attitude (disagree/agree) you could actually change the other person's attitude. The use of strong emotive connotations could initiate change in an individual since nobody wants to be labelled negatively. Stevenson coined the term persuasive definition to describe attitude shifters. However, the problem with sophisticated subjectivism is it does not take into consideration that there are appropriate and inappropriate way of changing attitudes, then no person would be in the position that his or her attitude is morally better and valid than others. For this reason, no attitude can be any better than any other, thus it is pointless to have an ethical stand about anything. On the otherhand, cultural relativism sees morality are dependent to culture. Culture adopt the moral rules they think suits them best. The problem with cultural relativism is it seems to take into account the rule of the majority ad force the minorityto conform. In complex societies it is hard to determine which set of the rules should be applied in the society as a whole.
2. I don't subscribe to the idea of relativism. I believe that there are universal moral truths and that every person since birth has a concept of what is good/bad, right/wrong. To believe that there are no universal moral truths is to live in a world of arbitrariness, with no two people agreeing or disagreeing with each other. You do not have to justify anything since what you do is always right for you.

[justify]

gonzales.shiela · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

2. Ethical Relativism is the prescriptive view that different groups of people ought to have different ethical standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong. These various beliefs are true in their own or particular societies. But these various beliefs are not instances of a basic moral principle.
A confusion lies between Cultural and Ethical Relativism. One must keep in mind that cultural relativism is a descriptive view of morality while ethical relativism is a prescriptive view.
An ethical relativist would argue that an absolute ethical standard does not exist. But he contradicts himself when he compares or judges a society as better than other societies. To say that one is better than the other, a relativist must appeal or base his conclusion to a certain ethical standard that he denies under the concept of Ethical Relativism.
In an ethical relativist perspective, a particular action or practice might be considered right in one society and wrong in another place. Thus, there is an inconsistency on the meaning of the words and terms being used. The ordinary use of words in this view results in meaninglessness. It can also be said that effective communication does not take place. A word must follow a certain minimum standard on its application for it to have meaning.
According to ethical relativists, right and wrong are to be determined in the situation. In addition, right and wrong are to be determined by what the majority determine at the time and place. Also right and wrong are ultimately established by power or authority. There are objections to the relativist’s belief that ethics is ascertained by what most people believe. Something does not become automatically true if the majority thinks it is true.
Another objection to Ethical Relativism is the occurrence of moral progress or improvement. This is not possible if ethical relativism is right because to have improvement, there should be a standard as the basis of the difference in moral values. But ethical relativists argue that [/justify]one can only judge according to his own values.

bersamina.joshua · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24 Location: Manila

Bersamina, Joshua S
2006 – 15803
Philosophy 171

Questions:

1. Identify the logical difficulties that go along with moral relativism.
2. Do you think moral relativism is true? problematic? Support your answer.

Answer:

1. Moral relativism, or more specifically ethical relativism, crudely argues that ethics and morality cannot have any universal criterion/criteria which can be used to evaluate individuals’ various actions. This is so because every culture, every social group possesses an individual and different set of values and mores, therefore making any attempt to judge or classify them as if they are alike absurd and illogical. This poses a problem of vagueness and ambiguity---as in the case of different language games. Take for example the concept of what is “good”. In a particular language game, good is synonymous to being virtuous and refraining from worldly pleasures. In others, it may mean the equal of pleasure or the things that will benefit the most number of individuals. This phenomenon is somewhat similar to the problems posed by the existence of different cultures producing different sets of social mores and norms. The sheer variety and diversity of different cultures and set of norms makes the establishment of a universal language, and in our case a universal criteria of what is right and wrong, nearly impossible.

2. I personally believe that moral relativism is a valid perspective in studying ethics, even though I would like to assert that there is nothing more effective in evaluating actions than studying them in a case-to-case, individual basis. Contexts and paradigms vary as situations vary, thus making seemingly wrong acts pardonable and sometimes even justifiable. However, one must not assume that this phenomenon validates the absence of a universal yardstick for ethics and morality; there ought to be at least a universal basis for what is good and what is not good. Intuitionism is an excellent perspective---man’s inherent goodness and “badness” would be the universal measure of the correctness of deeds. Ethics and the study of morality would be reduced to a mere sociological or anthropological branch if ethical relativism would be used as the sole approach in studying ethics. In conclusion, I therefore posit that ethical relativism ought not to be used as a single standard in studying ethical constructs.

cañamo_ijikhanran · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

2. There is a law in science which explains something like “a change in one thing affects everything else.” Everything is interconnected. Everything is relative to each other. This is what science proves. In some point, this is true. The statement “the abuse of human beings to nature will surely kill them in the future,” supports the relativity that science points out. Science has created a lot of mediums for human development, and even for the worsening of the world. There are ideas that are only acceptable for scientists and for science enthusiasts. There may be inventions that are considered helpful to many, but is a great offense to the other sects of society. In every world, in every dimension, there are rules to follow. These rules provide restrictions.
An alien, like a person visiting a foreign land, has the obligation to respect the culture, the traditions, or simply, the way of life of the people there. But an alien landing on a different planet will do things that may be offensive to human being because that alien may not know anything about right and wrong and it may think that what she/he does is the right thing knowing that it has done something destructive. In the alien’s point of view, it thinks that she/he is doing right, but on the other hand, in the perspective of the humans, the alien is considered a threat to them. In morality, the rightness or wrongness of things are given much attention. A question like, “Is abortion bad or good?” is common. Moral relativity deals with the fact that the rightness or wrongness of something varies as the environment changes. The people living in a society, who have created norms, who have built traditions and folkways, have a great influence in the acceptance of new values and new thoughts in a particular society. In the country there are tribes that have rituals that involve acts of killing. These practices are considered sacred to those tribes. When religion interferes, there will be a clash of positions. If the Church starts to speculate the acts of those tribes, conflicts are expected to rise. Cleavages among groups are bound to happen, for there will be no standard right, or standard wrong, to serve as a guide. What is good today may not be good tomorrow. Or what is good to us is bad to others.

Cruz James Leonard · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-26

I believe that moral relativism is both true and acceptable. The existence of differences in faith, governance, and other elements in the society is one thing that shows that it is indeed present. By saying this, a basic question that might pop-up is ‘Why do these differences exist?’. This is where one’s system of values comes into play. However, discussing values would only lead us to a common conclusion that these are things that are either ‘intrinsic’ or ‘extrinsic’ and thus end that way. I am not however discarding the concept of ‘value’ to be irrelevant in this debate, but rather thinking of it as something that has already been established.
I have mentioned faith and governance so I would give a few simple examples on these particular categories. On one hand we have faith or religion. Here I would focus on comparing the Christians and the Muslims. A common difference that could be seen is the laws regarding marriage. Christians are monogamous, while the Muslims are polygamous. Then on eating habits, Christians are not prohibited to eat pork while Muslims are. And also in terms of their worship, Christians worship Jesus Christ while the Muslims worship Allah.
On the other hand, for the issue of governance the existence of different types of political systems, political ideologies, political beliefs and the likes also support the existence of moral relativism. Even the existence of territorial borders is something that shows it. If there exists no difference in the way of thinking of all the people in the world then why do wars exist? Or even why are there borders – both territorial and ideological – that divide the world?
These simple and shallow examples show that these mere differences already make it clear that moral relativism exists. Is it acceptable? I believe so too. One might argue that because of this constant wars occur, but looking deeper into the history of wars – especially the Christian-Muslim war – one could see that it is also a result of one trying to impose their will over the other, trying to get them to accept something which they believe to be universal.
However, for those who view the world in an ‘ideal’ perspective, the existence of something like moral relativism is very problematic. Problematic in the sense that there would be nothing to determine which action is right or wrong. Or more specifically which is moral or immoral. This is because moral relativism promotes that there is no universal or absolute morality. So chaos might even occur to some. However, in reality, there are but a few universal truths and most of these are empirical knowledge and not moral.

Larosa · Posts: 4 Join date: 2008-11-25 Age: 21

Ethical relativism purports the idea that there is no universal truth (since no one has proven through time that there is one) hence there are no airtight standard moral right and wrongs that can be implemented in all societies because there is no absolute truth because everything is relative. This idea tells us that it would depend on the cultural and societal norms of a given society.
The first difficulty I want to point out in this idea is that just because no individual/entity has successfully proven fully the existence of a universal truth does not justify the conclusion that there is no universal truth.
Second, it doe not follow that if a given society practices a belief that is different from others’ perspective does not make it right completely because it is there belief. If a society permits killing does it follow that it is always permissible to follow that certainty? And if s/he migrates to another society wherein killing is immoral, can individuals label her as an immoral person?
Lastly, if this idea tells us that there is no universal code of ethics, then the idea of ethical relativism will contradict the existence of a Supreme Being, since it does not permit universal truth and morals. This is a personal argument I would like to point out. If relativists purport the idea that no absolute thing exists, can they say a Supreme Being exists? This notion will raise numerous criticisms from religious institutions and the like.
I believe that individuals’ outlook in what is good and not only differs due to the context that is being acculturated to them. Although they are diverse, it does not entail different moral principles. The mere fact that people still have the capacity to choose what they think is right and wrong tells us that not all of us easily obey blindly to societal norms etc. There will always be an absolute underlying moral standard.