Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Ethical Relativism
Summary
The reading refers to ethics as the scrutiny into a wrong or right through examining some underlying reasons for beliefs and practices. Thus, ethical relativism maintains that society’s morality depends on the cultural practices of an individual. The cultural traditions of a particular community such as torture, polygamy, sexism, racism, abortion may be morally wrong in another society. This means that moral restrictions are limited within cultures hence there are no global practices that govern the different cultures in the universe. A community can only be convicted according to its moral practices without being tied to another society. Therefore, by following ethical relativism, dealing with disputes related to the moral standards of individuals is limited to a society’s ethical practices (Velasquez et al., 1). The reading portrays philosophers and ethicists’ different arguments about ethical relativism and its impact on other members in a society in terms of the threats posed by practices in some societies.
Ethicists fail to recognize ethical relativism as a theory because, despite the difference in society’s moral practices, a reasonable point of the argument states that some traditions are generally wrong and should be disregarded by any community. For instance, some societies believed that killing identical twins was a way of chasing evil spirits because they did not understand that two different people could be identical. Such a practice is detestable in the current society, with other people viewing it as backwardness and murder. However, such societies that practice the killing of twins regard these practices to get rid of evil spirits. This is because they lack the knowledge and understanding of how some events take place and label them as misfortunes or curses. One morally wrong act in a community could be another community’s recommended act of justice or good deed. It is claimed that while a society’s ethical practice may differ, the ethical principles behind such practices are the same (Velasquez et al., 1).
Researchers argue that some cultural beliefs relate to other society’s cultural practices. The practices may include issues such as dress code and respect towards elders in society. Contrary, other practices that include segregation by race or violence on women fall under the global moral standards where most societies condemn them. Hence, globally condemned practices are those termed as harsh and unreasonable due to their extreme nature. However, some communities may rebel when their cultures are condemned because they fail to see their practices as inhumane and wrong. Ethical relativism has an influence on the moral beliefs of a person. For this reason, philosophers state that if a right or wrong of a deed is reliable on the norms and actions of a society, then people should adhere to their societal norms and lack of obeying the rules would mean that they are behaving immorally (Velasquez et al., 2). If one belongs to a society that believes in killing their firstborn, then they should follow such norms, and lack of obeying would mean they are morally wrong.
In some instances, ethical relativism is seen to encourage non-permissible actions that are cruel to other members of a community. People in society may fail to follow their norms by protesting against them because of their personal opinions and reaction towards the practices. However, the few members of a society that practice inhumane actions may fail to change them because it is the norm, and beliefs and practices should be strictly followed. The author in the reading states that among the most persuasive argument is that ethical relativism originates from people who agree that there exist moral standards despite the difference in beliefs and practices among communities (Velasquez et al., 2). Cultural practices exist in most societies, but some beliefs and practices are agreed to be morally wrong from the global moral standards. As earlier mentioned, some practices in society may dehumanize or cause harm to vulnerable members of society, such as children and the elderly. Therefore, it is a collective responsibility of global societies to join hands and fight such actions from some societies.
Since ethics measures the wrong or right by analyzing beliefs and practices, ethical relativism, which justifies the beliefs and practices in a society, may not realize that some communities have concrete grounds for their beliefs. Most practices in society are taken as rules set to control and govern people by preventing them from doing evil deeds while other practices are seen to mislead, oppress, and dehumanize people through inhumane acts. Ethicists seem to either ignore or refuse to embrace ethical relativism (Velasquez et al., 2). This is because it is seen to be harsh and one-sided, meaning that it does not regard the opinions and views of other people either within or outside the society. Ethical relativism is a reminder that different societies hold different practices. An individual’s belief is based on their cultural background in terms of the norms practiced in their society, and it would be difficult to change their perception of a particular belief, outside their society.
Analysis
The reading is meant to inform people about different views held by various societies concerning a particular topic of interest. However, this does not mean that ethical relativism is right in all societies and should be embraced no matter how harsh it seems. Ethical relativism seems to be opposite with other religious practices that forbid issues like polygamy, abortion, suicide, or murder. In the current world, it is a general right for people to live without their lives being cut short. However, a person’s life can be cut short within the law when someone is convicted for a heinous crime, and the law suggests that the individual be killed to attain justice. However, some societies still kill their people because of issues such as deformity or old age. Other communities take pride when one commits suicide and assures the person who is about to take their life that it is an honorable duty that they are performing.
The reading suggests that even though some practices in a society may be perceived as wrong, lack of following them would be morally wrong, and a person would be seen as deviating from their culture. According to an article by Good (29), human rights are defined by the UN office as rights that apply to all individuals regardless of their race, ethnic origin, language, or religion. Everyone is equally viable to live their life without being intentionally exposed to harm or torture. The Commission of Human Rights goes beyond ethical relativism to make each equal individual members of the global village. The author’s point in the reading on ethical relativism briefly mentions that some norms and cultures could be harmful. However, the author states that a lack of adherence to the practices and beliefs means that an individual is breaking the law by being morally wrong.
Ethical relativism is seen to be logical in one end and unrealistic on the other end. Some cultures base their beliefs on the value of other human beings and set their rules to protect their people. In such scenarios, ethical relativism may apply and should be followed because it is meant to protect other individuals. Contrary, other cultural practices in some societies need interventions from bodies like the Human Rights Commission to defend violent acts against other people. The reading supports ethical relativism in all aspects based on the notion that a society’s norms should be followed and obeyed by every member. Although the reading gives all aspects of relativism, it does not mention any religious connections to societal beliefs. Therefore, it can be assumed that some cultures form their practices and norms around their religious beliefs while other cultures base their standards on the events that happen around them. However, ethical relativism is not bias to religion because it concentrates on the lack of following the set practices by terming it as morally wrong.
According to today’s legal and philosophical discourse on human rights, the rights of people are universal. Human rights are meant to be rights possessed by being a human being. Although it is currently agreed that human rights are universal, it does not imply that it is universally agreed on the content and formation of human rights (Good, 31). That is where ethical relativism intervenes by having restrictions through different points of view concerning people of different societal backgrounds. Currently, some societies tend to hide or shy away from the public when practicing traditions such as violence against women or children and the elderly because of fear of apprehension by law and Human Rights Commission. To such societies, their perception is that human rights are intruding by disrupting their cultural practices, thereby preventing ethical relativism in some cultures.
The author in the reading on ethical relativism is not biased but gives his findings on how moral relativism works. Even though society is seen to be dehumanizing its members, relativism applies to both scenarios. The meaning of ‘ethical’ does not apply in the context of the reading because an ethical person is described as one whose behavior is morally upright in terms of being honest, fair, and truthful. Therefore, ethical relativism is a word used neutrally within societies who believe that their practices are morally upright despite condemnation from human rights and other concerned bodies that deal with individuals’ wellness. Surprisingly, most members of societies that practice harsh norms are comfortable with the consequences that they undergo, such as torture or killing twins and older people. The Human Rights Commission and other members outside such societies view these practices as forms of brainwashing people to think that they deserve the harsh treatment because of the set up in their community.
It can be perceived that the purpose of the reading is to show how the theory of ethical relativism applies to societies and why the lack of adhering to the norms in society is morally wrong. One would deny that lack of following practices that seem wrong to one community is unethical to another culture. Practicing ethical relativism means adhering to the set rules and standards, notwithstanding their potential harm to human beings. Therefore, it should be noted that the theory of moral relativism carries a broad understanding of a society’s background and conditions that steer the formation of cultural beliefs and practices. The author in the reading points to the reader that ethical relativism is a neutral theory that can be argued based on the interests and needs of humans or animals in a societal set-up. It is difficult to interrupt cultural practices based on ethical relativism, and it is also difficult to change the mindset of individuals who view their norms and practices as part of their society, no matter their cruel or harsh nature. Adopting ethical relativism would be favorable in some communities by helping them maintain humane standards while it would be disastrous in the eyes of outsiders in certain societies. This theory concentrates on following the rules in a society regardless of whether people think they are suitable or not, and lack of adherence to such standards would be termed as morally or unethically wrong.
Questions
- How is ethical relativism connected to human rights?
- Why is it good or bad to practice the theory of ethical relativism within a society?
- Is there a relationship between ethical relativism and religion?
Works cited
Good, Colleen. “Human rights and relativism.” Macalester Journal of Philosophy 19.1 (2010): 4.
Velasquez, Manuel, Andre, C., Shanks, T. & Meyer, J.M. Ethical Relativism.