Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is defined as the theory that ethical judgments or principals are relative to norms of an individual’s culture. That means whether an action is wrong or right depends on moral norms of the society where it is practiced. A sizable number of philosophers and lay persons embrace ethical relativism.

However there are philosophers who find this thesis patently false and question the reasons as to why anyone would entertain the same. While both factions might be right in their beliefs, they both miss a significant aspect. The faction that embraces ethical relativism wholly note there are salient respects in which ethics is relative though they erroneously infer ethical values are subjective noxiously.

On the other hand, the faction that rejects ethical relativism does so because they believe that the subject is a matter of rational scrutiny and that moral views are incorrect or correct. For ethical relativists universal moral standards do not exist as there are no universal standards that can be applied to all people. They believe that moral standards through which a society is judged are those that the society upholds.

If indeed ethical relativism is accurate, it means that there is no common framework that can be used to resolve moral disputes or reach agreement on matters of ethics among members who come from different societies. A large percentage of ethicists reject ethical relativism theory. They claim that while the moral practices upheld by communities vary, the basic moral principles that underlie the practices don’t.

For instance there were some societies that believed parents should be killed when they get to a certain age. This is because they believed people would be better able to cope in the afterlife if they entered it physically vigorous and active. Such practices would be condemned in today’s society but they would agree that underlying principal-taking care of parents- is true. Therefore, societies differ in how they apply fundamental moral principles though they agree in terms of principles.

Ethicists however recognize the fact that ethical principals are relative in the sense that they often are situation sensitive. Moral rules that are proffered such as ‘don’t lie’ are in undiluted yet objectionable form as people are told that allegiance to such invites consequences that are morally horrendous. Textbook wisdom states such rules are not absolute prescriptions that must be followed in an unwavering manner but rather rules of the thumb of moral principles.

As such ‘don’t lie’ is the short form of ‘don’t lie unless you must do so in order to avert moral harm’ or ‘don’t lie other things being equal’. Philosophers are in agreement that is extremely difficult if not impossible to delineate such principals.

At

For the ultimate solutions to all your problems in academic research writing, do not hesitate to talk to us at homework help.We can help you with papers for all academic niches and levels.