Relativism: The Tangible Theory Essay -- essays research papers

Relativism The Tangible Theory     Since the beginning of rational thought, philosophers have searched forthe unbowed meaning of morality. Many theorists have attempted to answer thisquestion with reasoning, in an attempt to find a universal set of rules, or a route to distinguish right from wrong. Some theorists believe that this questionis best answered by a single moral standard, while others debate if there can bea single solution. Cultural Relativism explores the idea that there can be no iodine moral standard that applies to everyone at any given time. The Kantiantheory, on the other hand, states that a universal sense of duty, would mostbenefit humankind. I believe that the Cultural Relativist theory takes intoconsideration the different cultures that make up the population as a whole.The idea of universal truth in ethics, is a myth. The customs of differentsocieties ar all that exist. These customs can non 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 discoering, more then ever, how diversecultures 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 ways never beforeimagined. Cultural Relativism believes that one set of ethics 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. on that point will always be exceptions to the rules.Cultural Relativism leaves the creation of moral and ethical 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 m oral standards,rather 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, use up 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 fact everyone is biased to his or her ownmoral beliefs. Absolutism is plainly 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 world 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.