Essay #1: In Support of Moderate Ethical Objectivism Pojman and Fieser put forth a theory of moderate objectivism that asserts that there are objective moral truths. They claim that a moral claim is objectively true when it describes an objective moral principle. An objective moral principle is a rule, which if generally followed, would optimally perform the function of serving human needs and interests by reducing harmful social conflict and promoting beneficial social cooperation. (Luco, Week 6 Notes, p3). This essay aims to prove ethical objectivism by using the form of moderate objectivism.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view. The main point favoring the cultural relativism argument is that if there are no moral principles, then the principles can only be relative to culture. If someone were to express their opinion about the morals of a culture that they didn’t agree with, including what the culture already believed to be right, then that person would lose the argument without any question. This can be easily disproved because in one culture, not every person is going to have the same moral judgments about what is right or wrong and people can establish objective moral principles. A culture also can’t think of them as having the power to decide which is right and
At first glance, the concept of Cultural Relativism provides an insightful, well-defined perspective on culture and society; however, upon further inspection we can dissect the traditional definition of Cultural Relativism to reveal its setbacks. As James Rachels refers to them, the 1st and 4th claims made by traditional Cultural Relativists, that different societies have different moral codes and that the moral code of our own society is one of many, go hand in hand and follow logically from each other. These claims depend on the contextual definition of “moral code,” and for this argument we will consider these claims to be reasonable and thus we can interpret them as true. When it comes to the 2nd and 3rd claims made by Cultural Relativists, that the moral code of a society determines what is right and what is wrong and that there is no objective standard that can be used to judge each society’s code, we begin to see the traditional definition of Cultural Relativism pull apart at the seams.
This is a legal but unethical issue. From this we can conclude that compliance ethics expects only the bare minimum, and to be a more ethical organisation, value ethics should be emphasized. Weaver and Trevino (1999) also believe that value ethics would have more of an impact and last longer in the organisation. Next is how formal culture systems promote ethics. Formal ethical systems consist of factors such as leadership, code of ethics, reward systems, orientation, and training programs.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the minority. Utilitarianism and Kantianism find the basis of their differences in the idea that the ends justify the means. Utilitarian beliefs support this idea while Kantian philosophy rejects this. Modern ethics were devised from these two basic ethical beliefs in an attempt to combine the best aspects. Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way.
Relativism and Morality Class: SOC120 Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility Relativism and Morality Morality, in many societies has been an ongoing, global contended issue. At its simplicity, it describes a code of acceptable behaviors in a given society. However, a Moral Minima is morality-based word that by definition means “minimum morality’. It sets the standards by which the members of a society have to adhere to be operating within the limits of proper moral conduct. With the advent of civilization, morality has become an issue that is interpreted in different ways depending on the angle at which one looks or evaluates from.
In doing this, I hope to provide an evaluation of the weaknesses in the relativist argument, in addition to an exploration of an alternative account of why the IBR has failed to integrate into certain non-Western societies that does not depend on an assertion (radical or non-radical) of relative cultural values. Cultural relativism is the view which advocates for ethical relativism on grounds of cultural differences. Kajit John Bagu defines it as “[t]he notion that a practice, value, norm and law of a society should be understood and appraised by people outside of that society only in that society's terms and standards”1. Human rights, in contrast, are defined within the articles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states in its preamble that it is a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations (...) secur[ing] their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”. These two notions, at their respective extremes (extremes herein referred to as radical cultural relativism and radical universalism2), are at odds with one another.