Rachels why morality is not relative

The conclusion that follows is that moral absolutism is false. Although many cultures practice different moral values, it does not mean that there is no absolute morally correct value.

Morality and sympathy are connected, but still very different. Throughout this chapter, Jonathan Bennett outlines many important points and factors that go into these connections and how they can overlap and conflict. People are afraid to hold people morally responsible. At the same time what Ali is stating is something that rings true for many people and organizations, who should use their voices to stand up for what is morally right and show where their values lay.

Schools should not be a judge of morals or deny people for that reason alone, David Cash did not break any laws but he did have one created because of his actions, so his morals do come into question as it should in cases like this.

The problem affects both our government and social society. Stereotypes are widely known and are hard to get rid of since, some choose to be ignorant in learning the various types of people we will come to communicate with; their lack of knowledge would force them to use the information available to them, which are stereotypes.

So, the reputation is not something that everyone in the society agrees on especially the character. In the Inuit Culture marriages are arranged based on the perception of what is best for the community and families. They are arranged by the parents of the bride and groom and the elders in the community. Divorce is common and polygamy in rare but does happen. Gender roles in the community are not absolute, but the men are considered superior to the women. Children play a big role in the composition of a family and often bring the community together.

In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. Bachelors are, by definition, unmarried. Thus, Larry is both married and unmarried follows from 1 and 2. But premise 3 is absurd -- it cannot possibly be true. Therefore, Larry is not a married bachelor.

In the case of Cultural Relativism, we have:. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society reductio assumption.

It is possible for there to be a society with a moral code that promotes genocide. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a society where genocide is morally right. But genocide could not be morally right relative to any society. Therefore, Cultural Relativism is false. As an exercise, try to construct the two other reductio ad absurdum arguments on your own. In particular, we have. This is the central thesis of Cultural Relativism. Now consider. Here we are told how we should react to other cultures.

It is not clear exactly what is required of us in being tolerant, but presumably it would require that we not interfere in other cultures for the purposes of imposing our own moral standards on them. The question now arises: is the claim that we should be tolerant of other cultures supposed to be an objective moral truth, or is it just part of our own moral code? If the tolerance requirement is supposed to be an objective moral truth, then it is incompatible with cultural relativism, for cultural relativism tells us that there are no objective moral truths.

So, the Cultural Relativist who wants to support the tolerance requirement must hold that 6 is part of our own moral code, but not necessarily true for other cultures.

There are a couple of serious problems with this, however. First, it just seems to be false that the tolerance requirement is part of the moral code of the U. At this moment, the U. While many Americans have objected to this, the objections have been mostly practical ones the cost in lives and dollars, the potential to make more enemies than friends, and the risk of failure.

Only a tiny minority has complained that it would be immoral to impose democracy on a non-democratic society although many people have noted that it would be extremely difficult. If the tolerance requirement were really part of our moral code, then we would expect this to be the main objection to the current Iraq campaign. Secondly, if it were part of our moral code, then it would actually prohibit us from criticizing other intolerant cultures.

After all, if those other cultures are acting in accordance with their own moral codes, then the tolerance requirement tells us that we must tolerate them, even if their behavior is imperialistic. Ironically, then, the tolerance requirement implies that it is arrogant and inappropriate for us to pass judgment on imperialist cultures of the past, such as the great colonial empires of Europe.

This is exactly the opposite of what the proponent of 6 wants to say, but it is just a logical consequence of Cultural Relativism in conjunction with 6. But first, here is some more terminology:. Not all moral standards are justified. Is it really true that different cultures have radically different moral codes? We noted earlier that in Eskimo culture, there is no prohibition against infanticide, whereas there is a very strong prohibition in our own culture. This difference can be explained by the very different circumstances in which our respective societies exist.

Eskimos live in extremely harsh conditions where there is little food or other resources to spare. A family may want to nourish its babies but be unable to do so. This apparent justification of infanticide raises the question of how much difference there really is between the moral code of the Eskimos and our own moral beliefs. Compare the following principles:. P1: Infanticide is always morally wrong. P2: Infanticide is always morally acceptable.

P3: Infanticide is wrong, except in cases where there are not enough resources to care for the infant. So, in American society, there is no practical difference between P1 and P3: in neither case would infanticide ever be justified for us. This makes it difficult to determine how far apart the two cultures really are on this issue. When Americans say that infanticide is always wrong, is this simply because they are not imagining being in a situation where the infant cannot be cared for?

Likewise, if Eskimos say that infanticide is not immoral, is this because they are not imagining living in a wealthy society where the infant can be cared for? It is possible that the two cultures are closer than they appear, and that both accept something closer to P3 than the other alternatives.

Arguably, all cultures must have certain values in common. This is because certain values are necessary for the survival of any society.

For example, any society must value caring for its infants. The decline of judging is due in part to the triumph of the ideology of victimization coupled with self-esteem mania.

Moral isolationism would lay down a ban on moral reasoning. Real moral skepticism could lead only to inaction. Download advertisement. Add this document to collection s. You can add this document to your study collection s Sign in Available only to authorized users. Description optional. Visible to Everyone.