Relativism Example Essay Example

Relativism Example Paper The theory of Moral Relativism suggests that no principle or value is completely right or wrong; it depends on the circumstances such as the particular society in which one lives in. This proves to be a problem when discovering the actual truth as people begin to think that the truth relies on who maintains it or that the only truth is their own. This can lead to truth having no significance because everything depends on the society to which one belongs to. This ideology originates from Ancient Greece at the time of Homer (8th century BCE). People within Greek society began to come across different ideas if what it meant to be moral. They questioned their own absolutist ideals, resulting in the discussions of the Sophists, a group of wise men, who disputed that all morality was relative what was right and wrong was different within every society. A Greek philosopher, Protagoras proposes that peoples main focus in life was to just get on with it; he says Man is the measure of all things. All they wanted was to fit in with their own community; the truth was an inconsistent and unpredictable idea. Protagoras said that nothing is absolutely right or wrong and that each person is their own final point of authority when making decisions. We will write a custom essay sample on Relativism Example specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Relativism Example specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Relativism Example specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Moral Relativism is also subjective, meaning that a persons values are relative to them and so cannot be judged objectively. This is important because we learn that we need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs and behaviour as well as not to impose our beliefs or morality on other people. Moral Relativism allows people to choose their own code of behaviour as long as it is within the law of society, an act may be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad alone. Consequently, we should not ask ourselves whether something is good or bad in general, but only whether it is good or bad in a particular situation. This is a teleological approach, as you are deciding whether something is good or bad depending on what the outcome will be. Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher, helped to develop the foundation for most of Western political philosophy from the perspective of the social contract theory. The social contract theory is the view that a persons moral and/or political responsibilities are dependant on a contract or agreement between them to form society and right or wrong is relative to this. According to the social contract theory, consent is the basis of government. It is because people have agreed to be ruled that governments are entitled to rule. Hobbes indicates that right or wrong is determined by the need for people to control their naturally selfish desires and to work for the interest and well-being of the group. He also points out that right and wrong are influenced by what is needed to minimise conflict and promote survival. John Leslie Mackie, an Australian philosopher wrote a book called Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. In his book, Mackie articulates that our moral beliefs do not shape the societies we live; rather our morality is shaped by society. He goes on to suggest that people want to believe morality has an objective truth, but that this is based on the psychological need to try and find an objective reality to base our views on and to give us confidence. However, there is no valid way of proving which moral view or belief is better as moral relativism requires us to be non-judgemental. Mackie concludes by saying that there is no real ultimate standard of right or wrong, which is a common relativist view. Cultural Relativism is less on a personal level as what is right or wrong depends on the culture. Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and morals are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, right and wrong are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since there is no universal standard of morality, nobody has the right to judge another societys customs. This means that we should adapt our behaviour to conform with the society we are in as well as behave in the way appropriate to the circumstances we are in. As a result, having good manners shows one has morality. Cultural Relativism is a pure example of the moral diversity amongst different cultures. For example, in Saudi Arabia the punishment for stealing may be to cut off a mans hand, however in this country the punishment is unheard of and thought to be brutal and unnecessary. This is what is known as the diversity thesis. Since, there is so much diversity across and amongst cultures there can be no one true morality. There are many other examples of culture clashes and rules of conduct for different places; however, for the relativist such differences do not present any problems because their own moral code applies to the society in which they live in. Moral Relativism is co-joining with religious authority. Many people in this day in age are not religious and therefore need some set standards of morality. Relativism also allows us to understand other cultures and to be tolerant of them. Nevertheless, Moral Relativism has its weaknesses and many Absolutists have criticised the theory. The Relativist says that you cannot have absolutist rules, yet they are contradicting themselves by saying, You must not judge anybody elses morality against your own, this is an absolutist rule. Another criticism suggests an important point, the Relativist approach is to accept and tolerate other peoples intolerant system. Respecting other peoples beliefs is difficult when they believe that the oppression of women is correct, for example. Some criticisms highlight that according to Relativists there is nothing wrong with slavery, torture or human sacrifice, if that is what a society practises then so be it. Additionally, Relativism gives little reason for behaving morally except to be socially accepted. There are several other flaws to the Relativist theory. For example, some statements are truly absolute, It is wrong to torture innocent people. Just because cultures vary, it does not mean there is no objective good. Along with this, ethical beliefs can change when they are challenged, primitive practises do discontinue. Moral relativism, because of its open-minded implications for ethics, is a matter of great importance; what we think about moral relativism matters. This is a situation where philosophy has a practical impact on society as a whole. It is important that the theory, and its consequences, are more widely understood in order to enforce true morality.