Philosophical Reflection
Philosophical reflection, in a broader sense, is connected to both reflexive thinking philosophy itself as it allows people to develop their thoughts. Philosophical reflection can be subdivided into sectors; what is written in books and other learning materials and an individual’s position about philosophy (Haskett, 5). In the same way, this essay discusses the two sides of the philosophical reflection.
Course Material
Under the course material, the essay will expound more on universalism or objectivism and moral relativism. Moral objectivism usually holds that moral values are objective. This means they exist in a realm that is above subjective human conventions (Ellin, 24). Moral truths usually do not change, no matter what the circumstances. They are also universal for as long as they apply to every rational creature across the globe and throughout time (Boss, 4). Universal moral truths (UMT) to many individuals are almost self-evident. UMT refers to a moral principle that is true for each person in the society irrespective of religion, culture, personal creed, epoch, or level of civilization (Ellin, 24). Some examples of UMT include “No one should lie” or “Everyone must obey their parents.” A UMT should apply to everyone in society. However, some individuals oppose the ideas of UMT because they do not differentiate between the principles ‘applying to everyone’ and ‘being accepted by everyone’ (Ellin, 24). The latter happens if only you acknowledge a principle. This means that a principle may apply to everyone but not get accepted by everyone.
Moral relativism is moral values founded on strictly human inventions (Fieser, 1). It comes in two distinct forms; individual relativism or sociological relativism and cultural relativism. Sociological relativism holds the notion that individuals create their moral standards. On the other hand, cultural relativism is based on the approval of an individual’s group or society, not just individual preference. The significant difference between individual relativism and cultural relativism is that individual relativism holds the view that morality is relative to an individual. On the contrary, cultural relativism old the view that morality is relative to a particular culture.
Moral objectivism and relativism hold two opposing views. Relativism holds that moral values are not fixed or absolute; instead, they are shaped by social beliefs and norms. Contrary, objectivism holds that there is only one set of moral standards that everyone should follow. It is either right or wrong; hence, morals cannot be defined by an individual or society.
My Position
Moral objectivism or relativisms are two opposing views which are correct depending on the perspective of an individual. Personally, I believe that relativism has more ground when it comes to morals because some cultures have different views on various aspects of life. For example, it is moral for the Muslim culture to marry more than one wife while it is immoral for a Christian to do the same. This means that moral values are shaped by individuals or cultures we live in.
UMT is applies to everyone in society. Under this idea, an act is either right or wrong because a moral principle applies to every individual in society. There are UMTs that exist against social issues such as racism or genocide because they are examples of immoralities in the society. For example, “Do not discriminate people of color.” This is a UMT that is against racism. Concerning Boss, argument, he terms relativism as a weak moral theory because of the shortcomings it expresses in its application. This is because it can be dismissive of other people’s cultures (Fieser, 3). When an individual claims that another person is wrong because they hold a different view about a particular matter, then relativism becomes weak because it cannot accommodate diversity.
Work Cited
Boss, Judith A. “Analyzing moral issues.” (2001).
Ellin, Joseph. Morality and the meaning of life: an introduction to ethical theory. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1995.
Fieser, James. Abridged and adapted from 1.a “Ethics” from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Haskett, Daniel. “Because” the unexamined life is not worth living”(Socrates).” (2011).