Wednesday, June 11, 2014

ethical relativism - for extra credit

 ethical relativism - for extra credit 


Right and wrong, good or bad is not absolute, and perspective to be that it is a relatively variable depending on the circumstances of the individual, the environment and society.

It dates back to the Protagoras is a sophist of BC 5 century Greek, these observations have led to the scientific approach sociology, anthropology today.
Many people are aware of their confusing obscuring the view. Ethical relativism is not a faith that is dependent on the environment is what's right simply. Because, everyone, including the absolutist because agree that some circumstances can make a difference. We are recognized as suffering from or strength that person go correct some people from entering in any home is the owner, and whether the customer, or whether police had a warrant. It is not a faith that I think some people are right is dependent on the social conditions of his. This is because, on the back of the things that people think is correct, is because everybody can agree that there is a causal effect.

Ethical relativism is,'s view that is taken to only believe what individuals and society and correct single-mindedly go What truly correct. That some people are thinking will vary depending on it even after what correct because it will vary depending on the time and place. Therefore, ethical relativism is a view on the truth phase of moral principle. That is, according to the case, moral principles change, moral principles are in conflict with each other even be true as well. Therefore, an objective way to justify the principle of Some suitable to all societies and everyone does not exist.

Sociological Nonbyon to defend relativism starts from the cultural diversity of the multiple. For example, type Patterns of Culture of "Culture> To~urujoku Pueblo also Comparing the culture such as lack of foster Kuah North American Indian from the (1934), anthropologist Ruth Beni Dick program in the United States, different from each other Within each culture, also, act with moral beliefs are in conflict with each other, also claim to provide sufficient criteria that member to evaluate properly the behavior of their own individual. Therefore , relativism is not to take away from people the moral guidance of all. However, in practice the moral belief, a particular anthropologist some like Ralph Linton and Luke soul big Clyde, " He pointed out that there is a similarity to penetrate the culture and ethical universality ". In other words, the prohibition of murder, incest, lie and non-fair trade, etc. are present in general. Compared to the special case of moral disagreement, the similarity of these impressive more, this particular discrepancy is that it is understood to take place within the framework basic moral universality and more, is provided I could. In addition, some criticism, so do not have also the foundation of some of assessing the social criticism that occur in society that views of other party ideologist is open free, the view is, social reform de facto point out that it looks as if it would be the idea of ​​castration.

The demonstration of the second to defend relativism, rather than description of what can be verified true-false and moral Onpyo, only a norm for action or thing, to express the feelings of opposition and favor It is Nonbyon of skeptics that. According to this view, the impact of the deviation between the moral Onpyo, is relatively to changes in the conditions that cause such as feelings, attitudes, norms such, there is no basis for any more. It is possible to tell people to criticize skepticism like this and not deny the fact itself that classifies representation sensuous moral Onpyo is that it can function in the belief that the Onpyo has a cognitive content .

It can be said diarrhea or moral Onpyo even if not cognitive opponent 'S is to say its Onpyo, not tying the relationship between the variables only. Moral Onpyo can also be anywhere at any time, to tie the relationship between needs and need essential, in a special way in common to society and human nature. In that case, these requirements can be a good basis to justify to what statements moral other. Critics, for a demonstration of these, the human nature, even if there is such a request or diarrhea, or answer and does not have the requirements common such, relativist is able to find the request It can not, therefore, it is necessary to answer can not be used to provide on the basis of the moral discussion humans.

No comments:

Post a Comment