While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. 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.
Morals concern what is right and wrong. Right and wrong usually vary depending on what is normal in a specific culture or society. Many people would agree that what is “right” is moral, but it is James Rachels that explores what makes something right. Rachels argues that it is the cultural normality’s of a society itself, that makes an action morally right, while others would disagree and claim that there is a set of “universal moral codes” that people should live by. In different societies and cultures what is morally right and wrong can be determined only within the individual mind of a person.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so cannot be meaningful as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are meaningful as they are about facts and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of Meta ethics which holds the belief that ethical statements are the same as non ethical ones, so can be verified or falsified in the same way.
I learn from past mistakes as well as building on past successes. I value other people’s rights and expect them to maintain their responsibilities as much as I do. However, I would never ask someone to do something I would not do. For example, I would not ask someone to give me the answers to a test because I would not do that myself. My ethical blind spot is my belief that motive justifies the method or overconfidence in the process.
The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth. Objectivism is another name for absolutism. The general relativist denies that are any objectively true statements; general relativism is the view that statements are true only from a point of view (individual, community, or culture). As with scepticism and dogmatism, many people are relativists only about some areas. You might be a relativist regarding ethical matters--saying that moral correctness is merely in the mind of the individual, or maybe the dominant group in the society, but remain an absolutist about mathematics, saying that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you or I or anybody else thinks so.
It varies from place to place. Humans are humans, and so we should view things the same. But there are outside influences in cultures that make us see the discussed views differently. There is no truth in defining what is just and unjust but we are persuaded by believing what is in our morals by following the evidence, logic and reasoning behind each argument made. The author says “and one ought to bring up the question whether it is those who are sane or those who are demented who speak at the right moment”.
Ethics Awareness Inventory which is where I did my assessment which supports my principles that human beings are entitled to basic rights; consequently, actions have to respect the rights of others. Someone who does not respect other people is not respected person. This person has to treat others the way he would like to be treated. As individuals we suppose to have the right to make our own decision, and if those decisions affect others in a harm way we already know there are consequences for those who attend to break the laws they could have everything in their own way regardless of whom pays the consequence. Those unethical behaviors we could not accept, because that will have affected in us all.
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.
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