Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false. In this essay I will be discussing the multiple branches of cognitive theories and non cognitive theories in order to answer the Janus-like question whether or not moral statements truly hold objective meaning. Ethical naturalism is just one branch of a cognitive theory in which naturalists believe that ethical statements are the same as non-ethical ones, meaning they are all factual and can
Therefore people may think what they're doing is right in their certain situation but in reality they are actually in the wrong. Also this conveys there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good as relativist thinker Mackie says there are no objective values rightness and wrongness do not exist in the world. alternatively this statement proposes that relativist have not defined what is right or wrong so therefore the relativist theory cannot provide a convincing reason as to why people should be good because they do not have a definition at all of what is right or wrong and they clearly recognise that there are different perspectives of what is right or wrong. No two people may agree on judgement, Sumner a cultural relativist suggests that ancestors have passed down traditions and they are just an experience of their culture. This conveys that there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good because if there cultural says they should do something that is morally wrong, for example killing someone to use them as a sacrifice then in their eyes they are not doing anything wrong they are just following their culture and it doesn't convince them to be good.
In the writings of Principa Ethica(1903);G.E Moore criticises the cognitive stance of Ethical naturalism of Naturalistic fallacy. Here Moore claims that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”, this meaning that one cannot move from a fact to a moral judgment as, he saw this as logically inconsistent. For example one cannot say that ethical language or moral terms are similar to natural properties. This would deduce them to as meaningless. In fact, Moore claims that ethical language is similar to simple concepts, by this he means that one can only determine the meaning of ethical language in association with another object.
Cultural Relativism, a term used to describe individual’s beliefs that should be accepted in one’s cultural but also can be denied in society. In James Rachels’ essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, she brings up varies examples that contradicts with one society’s beliefs to another society. She uses this term and analyzes it different situations proving that it can be controversial at times since no one should have the same thinking process as another person. For example, if you were to take to civilizations of the past and tell them to trade beliefs. They would find it outrages since it would be unorthodox to their teachings.
The Race Relations Act does not allow positive discrimination or affirmative action - in other words, an employer cannot try to change the balance of the workforce by selecting someone mainly because she or he is from a particular racial group. This would be discrimination on racial grounds, and unlawful. The term 'positive action' refers to measures that may lawfully be taken to meet special needs or to train or encourage people from a racial group that is under-represented in particular work. Key points of the Race Relations Amendment Act: • Racial discrimination is "unnacceptable" and is outlawed in all public authorities, and in those functions of public authorities run by the private sector. • Public bodies will have a general duty to promote race equality - they will have no discretion to decide "whether the promotion of race equality is an 'appropriate activity' ".
Moral relativism and absolutism are extremes comparative to east and west or good vs evil. While there are areas in between, fundamentally, societies fall in one or the other. The explanation of moral fundamentalism and absolutism is not easily achieved. However a brief explanative on each should make it self evident as to where American society lies. Comparing these two contrasting views on morals is not as easy as one would think.
What racial profiling does is not protect us, but I believe it endangers us more. If police, airport security or any other form of enforcement are looking for someone that “fits the profile”, they could be letting people, that may not necessarily “fit the profile,” walk right on by, when he or she could be an eminent danger. You can’t put a whole race, religion, or ethnic group into one big category and assume that they all are a threat. Everyone should be treated with equality, and not based on what their background is. I also think that racial profiling encourages hatred between races.
I believe that Cultural Relativism is acceptable today as there are no universal moral truths. In different cultures certain actions have different meanings and we coming from different cultures find it difficult to comprehend the historical and cultural practices. It is more important to look at the act in context of that particular cultures moral stand on what is right and wrong. Cultural relativism is seen as wrong by many people due to what is considered inhumane by other cultural standards yet it comes down to the point of who can justify what is morally right and wrong and should we try and westernize these cultures which in the end will destroy their cultures belief and years of cultural practice. No one can ultimately set out a list of moral universal truths as they could not possibly take into consideration all practices upheld by different cultures.
But isn’t it up to the person to decide what offends them? What offends one might not offend another. So do we take away everything that offends somebody? That is unrealistic to take away someone’s freedom of expression. Larry Flynt for example stated that “it is not freedom for the thought you love but freedom for the thought you hate most”.
Although, whenever an unusual cultural practice is encountered the first reaction is disbelief and rejection. Negative reactions like this mean we can not effectively understand what we are experiencing. Philosopher John Cook observed that cultural relativism "Is aimed at getting people to admit that although it may seem to them that their moral principles are self-evidently true, and hence seem to be grounds for passing judgement on other people, in fact, the self-evidence of these principles is a kind of illusion". Once it is realised