PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Ruth Benedict, James Rachels, Moral Absolutism

304 views1 pages

cyanreindeer497

9 Oct 2018

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

RUTH BENEDICT JAMES RACHELS

"cultural

moral relativism

"cultural Imoral absolutism

morality is based on your culture critique for Benedict -Morality is not

it diff cultures =diff .beliefs :diff morals Relative . • ①conclusion claims more

than her arguments warrant .

"universal Morality doesn't exist bc .②Neither sound ,

nor valid .

although we know Murder Theft is bad ,③conclusion does not follow premises .

it still happens in the world .

"*Benedict argument is based on what

people believe ,not what is true .Differing

Culture separates moral us immoral beliefs ¥all beliefs are right

by distinguishing between

lus .

abnormal .{definition If true

CULTURE .

"Something everyone is doing .

→Chaos from free will ⇒society

PHILOSOPHERS .

ability to function socially.

"→NO progress as this is Contradiction

Benedict :Differing definitions of normal →Morality dependant on society =subjective

shows that morality is relative .

Rachel 5Cultures have diff . rituals ,

↳

Culture is established by traditions tbut Similar belief systems .Core Values !

habits of asociety .No first principles of Diff in Cultures IDiff in Values .

the human race = no right and wrong ,Agrees that "ideas of right and wrong

all subjective to culture .are not universal IBut believes that

: MORALITY .rule .governed Isocially approved values are shared across the world

behaviour relative to agroup .

for societies to exist .

NO 0NE MORAL TRUTH MORAL ABSOLUTISM

issue .no standard of moral ⇒freedom issue .morality is

displayed

differently

across cultures through rituals

Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 1 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

I moral absolutism morality is based on your culture it diff cultures. = diff . beliefs : diff morals critique for. Neither sound nor valid . than her arguments warrant although we know. , conclusion does not it still happens in the world . Culture separates moral us immoral beliefs all beliefs follow premises . what based on is is are true . Differing right by distinguishing abnormal between l us . definition. Philosophers . ability to everyone function is doing . socially . true. : differing definitions of shows that morality is relative normal. Cultures have diff rituals habits of the a society . No human race no first principles of wrong , right and all subjective to culture. I but right and wrong believes that universal. Morality . rule . governed i socially approved values are shared across the world behaviour relative to a group for societies to exist.

Related Questions

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Ruth Benedict, James Rachels, Moral Absolutism

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Cultural Relativism, Relativism

PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: General Idea

PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Divine Command Theory

Related Questions