Ethical relativism is a position on morality saying that there are no universally accepted moral rules. Morality varies from one civilization to another and no society has the right to enforce their position of morality on other societies. Ethical relativism can be summed up to intend that ethical motives are derived from what is culturally acceptable in any given society. ER is made up of two theses. The first is the diverseness thesis. which merely says that moral patterns are diverse across civilizations. Ruth Benedict defends this theory by utilizing homosexualism as an illustration.
She explains how homosexualism was accepted and even encouraged in many civilizations throughout history. like ancient Greece. but denounced in others. More grounds for the diverseness thesis can be found in burial patterns. Ancient Greeks honored their dead by firing the organic structures. Similarly. Callatians showed regard to their dead by eating the organic structures. However. both civilizations were highly offended when asked how much money would be required to establish the burial patterns of the other. These illustrations clearly illustrate the huge differences in morality from civilization to civilization.
ER’s 2nd thesis is called the dependence thesis. It states that there is no nonsubjective criterion by which to judge morality. Westermark defends this theory by stating that moralss is a erudite set of behaviours instilled in every homo at a immature age by his or her milieus. As a immature individual. we pick up on “right” and “wrong” by larning from those around us what is culturally acceptable. The ultimate beginning of morality. harmonizing to Westermark. is sympathy. This “gut feeling” of right and incorrect is the lone graduated table of morality each individual has.
Pojman has found many disagreements in the theory of ethical relativism. Since ER says that no civilizations position of morality can be criticized. we ought to be tolerant of all civilizations. The job is that tolerance would so be a cosmopolitan moral rule. which ER says doesn’t exist. In fact it would be merely as acceptable for a civilization to be intolerant since morality is comparative. Thus ER is logically inconsistent. This incompatibility makes ER unsuitable to work outing struggles between civilizations. since each can be viewed as being morally right in any action by their ain definition.
Pojman besides explains how any societal reformists. like Martin Luther King Jr. . would inherently be incorrect by traveling against the social bulk ( i. e. those that determine ethical motives ) . ER besides implies that mass sentiment is infallible. therefore doing a barbarous dictator such as Hitler morally justified. The challenge of the ring is a conjectural inquiry posed to Socrates by Glaucon in the fifth century BC. Glaucon introduces a fabulous ring that turns its wearer unseeable. Glaucon says that every individual. even the apparently most moral. would utilize the ring to his or her advantage even at the hurt of others.
His statement is based on the fact that the lone ground people don’t unrecorded to the full unfair lives now is fright of reverberations. Under the judicial admission that one can ne’er be caught. the fright vanishes one becomes immoral. Socrates responds by inquiring if injustice truly does pay. His point is that by one’s ain definition of success. one may or may non utilize the ring. For illustration if success is defined by a adult male as being scrupulous. he wouldn’t use the ring because finally it doesn’t lead to happiness for him. In contrast. the adult male who defines success by wealth would utilize the ring.
Socrates says that to make unfairness is to mark 1s “soul. ” which is tantamount to the modern word “character. ” Both sides of the ring statement have merit. For the bulk of the population I believe Glaucon is right. they would utilize the ring. However. some define felicity otherwise. and for them the ring is of no usage. Friedman’s statement on corporate societal duty is that it doesn’t exist. Harmonizing to Friedman. a corporation’s merely end is to increase net incomes boundlessly while remaining within the kingdom of the jurisprudence.
He states that a corporate executive is simply an employee of the stockholders and his or her occupation is entirely to increase return to the stockholders. If an executive were to be “socially responsible” and donate money to a charity. it’s an unauthorised distribution of stockholder financess. Therefore being socially responsible is at the same time being morally irresponsible. The load of societal duty should be placed on single consumers. If they don’t like the policies and patterns of a certain company they have the option to non purchase the merchandise or non put in the company.
The Godhead bid theory makes a individual distinction between right and incorrect. Simply. harmonizing to DCT. morally right agencies commanded by God and morally incorrect agencies forbidden by God. This theory is extremely criticized and many philosophers would state it has been refuted for 1000s of old ages. The chief unfavorable judgment comes from Socrates and Euthyphro. The inquiry is whether what is right is right because God says so ( DCT ) or does God say it’s right because he sees that its right ( theory of natural jurisprudence ) . Option one is rapidly dismissed by Euthyphro because it implies rather a spot of flightiness.
For case. in the really get downing all actions were morally equal until God get downing commanding and forbiding certain 1s. If God loving something makes it right. what ground is at that place for God desiring us to make right? If God commanded criminal conversation. criminal conversation would be morally right and obligatory. Option two means that there is a criterion of ethical motives independent from God’s ain will. This contradicts the Godhead bid theory’s basic constituent that commanded by God is right and prohibited by God is incorrect. -Reason. Morality. and Public Policy: Authoritative and Contemporary Readings in Doctrine by: G. M. Brown. Ph. D.