An examination of relativity of moral standards

Historical Background Though moral relativism did not become a prominent topic in philosophy or elsewhere until the twentieth century, it has ancient origins. In the classical Greek world, both the historian Herodotus and the sophist Protagoras appeared to endorse some form of relativism the latter attracted the attention of Plato in the Theaetetus. It should also be noted that the ancient Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi sometimes spelled Chuang-Tzu put forward a nonobjectivist view that is sometimes interpreted as a kind of relativism. Among the ancient Greek philosophers, moral diversity was widely acknowledged, but the more common nonobjectivist reaction was moral skepticism, the view that there is no moral knowledge the position of the Pyrrhonian skeptic Sextus Empiricusrather than moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society.

An examination of relativity of moral standards

Historical Background Though moral relativism did not become a prominent topic in philosophy or elsewhere until the twentieth century, it has ancient origins. In the classical Greek world, both the historian Herodotus and the sophist Protagoras appeared to endorse some form of relativism the latter attracted the attention of Plato in the Theaetetus.

It should also be noted that the ancient Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi sometimes spelled Chuang-Tzu put forward a nonobjectivist view that is sometimes interpreted as a kind of relativism. Among the ancient Greek philosophers, moral diversity was widely acknowledged, but the more common nonobjectivist reaction was moral skepticism, the view that there is no moral knowledge the position of the Pyrrhonian skeptic Sextus Empiricusrather than moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society.

This pattern continued through most of the history of Western philosophy.

An examination of relativity of moral standards

These discussions pertained to moral objectivity, but moral relativism as a thesis explicitly distinguished from moral skepticism ordinarily was not in focus. Prior to the twentieth century, moral philosophers did not generally feel obliged to defend a position on moral relativism.

Nonetheless, the increased awareness of moral diversity especially between Western and non-Western cultures on the part of Europeans in the modern era is an important antecedent to the contemporary concern with moral relativism.

During this time, the predominant view among Europeans and their colonial progeny was that their moral values were superior to the moral values of other cultures.

Few thought all moral values had equal or relative validity, or anything of that sort. The main impetus for such a position came from cultural anthropology. At the beginning anthropologists accepted the assumption of European or Western superiority. But this assumption began to be challenged in the twentieth century, especially by some social scientists in the United States.

An early dissent came from the sociologist William Graham Sumner, who proposed a version of moral relativism in his Folkways.

But the most influential challenge originated with the anthropologist Franz Boas. He and his students—in particular, Ruth Benedict, Melville J. Herskovits, and Margaret Mead—explicitly articulated influential forms of moral relativism in the first half of the twentieth century.

Inon the occasion of the United Nations debate about universal human rights, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement declaring that moral values are relative to cultures and that there is no way of showing that the values of one culture are better than those of another.

Anthropologists have never been unanimous in asserting this, and more recently human rights advocacy on the part of some anthropologists has mitigated the relativist orientation of the discipline.

Nonetheless, prominent anthropologists such as Richard A. Shweder and the late Clifford Geertz have defended relativist positions in recent years. An important early bridge from anthropology to philosophy was established by Edward Westermarck —8 anda social scientist who wrote anthropological and philosophical works defending forms of empirical as well as metaethical moral relativism.

In the latter half of the 20th century, moral philosophers began devoting considerable attention to moral relativism and some—most notably Richard B. Brandt and John Ladd —took quite seriously the empirical effort of anthropology to understand the moralities of different cultures, to the point of making such empirical inquiries themselves an anticipation of the recent emphasis on experimental philosophy, to be discussed in section 3.

In the past several decades there has been increasing consideration of moral relativism, and there is now an enormous literature on the subject the Bibliography below is very limited. There are also discussions of moral relativism in applied fields such as medical ethics.

For example, in anthropology it sometimes connotes, among other things, the rather uncontroversial notion that anthropologists should strive to be impartial and unprejudiced in their empirical inquires. The empirical position is usually: As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be.

Sometimes what is emphasized is moral diversity rather than strict disagreement. DMR is often thought to have been established by anthropology and other empirical disciplines. However, it is not uncontroversial: Empirical as well as philosophical objections have been raised against it.

Hence, it is one focal point of debate. The metaethical position usually concerns the truth or justification of moral judgments, and it has been given somewhat different definitions. Metaethical relativists generally suppose that many fundamental moral disagreements cannot be rationally resolved, and on this basis they argue that moral judgments lack the moral authority or normative force that moral objectivists usually contend these judgments may have.

Download Citation on ResearchGate | Ethical relativism vs absolutism: Research implications | b>Purpose – The constructs of relativism and absolutism have a significant role to play in the. Moral relativism states that moral norms emerge from the particular requirements of a specific society or culture and hence are valid only relative to that environment. but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral standards around the world. but it can be used in other areas of philosophy. An examination of. Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike.

Hence, metaethical relativism is in part a negative thesis that challenges the claims of moral objectivists. However, it often involves a positive thesis as well, namely that moral judgments nonetheless have moral authority or normative force, not absolutely or universally as objectivists contendbut relative to some group of persons such as a society or culture.

This point is typically made with respect to truth or justification or bothand the following definition will be a useful reference point: The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

It is not true, or false, simply speaking. Likewise, with respect to justification, this judgment may be justified in one society, but not another.

Taken in one way, this last point is uncontroversial: The people in one society may have different evidence available to them than the people in the other society. But proponents of MMR usually have something stronger and more provocative in mind:I an examination of relativity of moral standards ask greed lust and the american dream in the great gatsby a novel by f scott fitzgerald questions about the factors leading to the revolutions of and social philosophy for an analysis of the technological age and the sensibility of the study of humanities Yeah.

a history of. Download Citation on ResearchGate | Ethical relativism vs absolutism: Research implications | b>Purpose – The constructs of relativism and absolutism have a significant role to play in the. The purpose of this paper is to undertake an in‐depth examination of ethical relativity and ethical absolutism before concluding with a discussion of which .

Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike.

Ethics and Values ~ Study Guide for Final Exam Ethics and Values Ethics-: Study of Action. a system of moral principles: The moral standards adn legal laws sometimes have opposite contents. Moral codes are diverse and changing over time. A difference between the moral and legal laws is.

An examination of relativity of moral standards

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced.

[email protected]: Relativism, Reason, & Reality, Fall