Relativism: The Tangible Theory Essay -- essays research papers

Relativism The Tangible Theory     Since the beginning of rational thought, philosophers have searched forthe true meaning of honourableity. Many theorists have attempted to answer this pass with reasoning, in an attempt to find a universal stria of rules, or a course to distinguish duty from wrong. Some theorists believe that this questionis outperform answered by a single lesson standard, while others debate if at that place shag bea single solution. Cultural Relativism explores the idea that there can be noone moral standard that applies to everyone at any given time. The Kantiantheory, on the other hand, states that a universal genius of duty, would closelybenefit humankind. I believe that the Cultural Relativist theory takes intoconsideration the distinguishable cultures that make up the population as a whole.The idea of universal accuracy in ethics, is a myth. The customs of differentsocieties are all that exist. These customs can not be correct or incorrect for that implies there is an independent standard of right and wrongby which they may be judged. In todays global community people areinteracting more and we are now discovering, more then ever, how several(a)cultures and people really are. For these reasons the Cultural Relativisttheory best defines what morality is, and where it came from.     Today all over the world people are communicating in ship canal never beforeimagined. Cultural Relativism believes that one set of morals will notadequately adapt to the individuality of all the cultures and subcultures in theworld. What this means is that there is no one moral law that fits everysituation at every time. There will always be exceptions to the rules.Cultural Relativism leaves the creation of moral and estimable standards to thecommunity. The community then makes moral judgments based on its specificculture, history, and individuality. For these reasons Cultural Relativismhelps the community, by letting the community set its own moral standards, quite than impose a set of morals, as the absolutists would suggest. Imposinga set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the differentcultural differences that exist today. If a universal moral law were to becreated, what criteria would be considered? Would one use each communitiessreligion, customs, laws, educational standards, or cult... ...the nations of the world the set ofbeliefs which he thought brought the most good and happiness, he wouldinevitably, after careful considerations of their relative merits, choose thatof his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs,and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best." And this discredits thepossibility that one such person can come up with a set of morals, or a true wayto calculate those morals, because in feature everyone is biased to his or her ownmoral beliefs. Absolutism is obviously not a feasible solution due to the factthat the cultures of the world are too radically diverse to ever be able to beclassified under one set of moral and ethical guidelines. I believe theUtilitarian idea of maximizing the good of the whole is also not feasible, onaccount of everyone not agreeing on what makes them the most happy. TheKantinisen sense of duty is discredited in the same way, on account ofeveryones sense of duty being different. Although there will never be a moralor ethical theory that clearly includes all cultures as morally right, theRelativist theory is by far the most sensible solution offered to us at thistime.