Moral Relativism?

Question

Moral Relativism is a popular idea floating around the world today, and the way I understand it, Moral relativism is the idea that moral values are based on what society or an individual deems is right, this may seem to some a liberating concept, self choice and all that, but according to this theory, if society had been accepting of genocide, would Hitler, Stalin, Mao and there like have been innocent? Would there decision to have millions killed been "right" if society had thought it to be. Just looking for some thought on the subject.

Answer 1

The way I've understood it--and that's just me, not from studies on the topic--moral relativism simply means that there are hardly any "absolutes" when it comes to morality. Each decision is, instead, an individual choice.

For example, we shouldn't kill people, right? Unless you're in the army. Or unless it's self-defense. That's the relative part. OR, back in the Old West, a family might be hiding out from the Apaches (who were known for their torture methods) and decide who would shoot the children if they were found, rather than allow them to be taken. It's certainly wrong to kill your children! But if you kill them to keep them from being tortured, IS it completely wrong?

For the most part, claims of morality make good guidelines. But to me, moral relativism leaves room for the exceptions to the rule.

Answer 2

Since the leaders serve their country. And the soldiers under them are his countrymen. The law of Respondent superior blames these genocide to the leader. Where in fact the whole country was at fault. It was their system then that failed. Should it not be that the leader is lesser than the countrymen and yet the blame (respondent superior) is still vetoed to the leader not to the countrymen. I have been thinking of opening up a college on social engineering but I don't have the means to do so in this lifetime. Rightness and wrongness depends on the point of view of every religion, government or society. Ethics has answers for this. Try on General Ethics of Man if there such a book. There will always be pros's and con's. You just have to know where you stand and live by it. Inherently man is good. Evil is the spice of life and thus it's hot. Ethics guide us to act or decide when a predetermined event happens and we are faced with a dilemma.

Answer 3

You have it slightly backwards - what is deemed right, is based on values. Values are, as the better answerer says, just what you think is more important or better for you. There are some values that most everyone shares, like 'killing is wrong' -- but in every case of a would-be absolute moral, one can imagine an exceptional situation, where what's usually right would be wrong. That's why morals are relative. It doesn't mean that mass murder can be justified in reality, only in theory -- even if the genocidal society approves, the genocide victims do not.

Answer 4

"traditionally, Christians of maximum flavors, observed a code that could desire to assert that there are ethical absolutes. " There have never been ethical absolutes. those comparable Christians you declare existed have been additionally the comparable ones who offered products that have been meant to forgive sins. there is not any question that up till a techniques is shaped that the baby isn't something extra beneficial than a clump of cells. or you're saying you apart from could shouldn't kill skin cells by using sunbathing. there is not any gay schedule, provide up mendacity. no person is announcing divorce is sturdy. each and every thing you declare is fake. edit: Then there are additionally examples interior the bible itself that time out that ripping the unborn baby from the mummy is okay, thoroughly negating your complete argument that this is undesirable. Edit2: And interior the bible the place it of course states life would not initiate till breath is taken? ethical relativism. so which you heavily don't understand the adaptation between radicals and non-radicals and that's what you base your schedule off of? I editted above so which you be responsive to what i replaced into bearing on, I care no longer something of perfection in basic terms hypocrisy. in basic terms face it, there are not any ethical absolutes and there never have been. Edit to Michael C: Oh ok effective the APA replaced this is perspectives on homosexuality, properly then permit's learn what they are announcing approximately delusions. YEP! thought on your god is a fantasy yet they have the caveat that faith can't be construed that way. perhaps because of the fact they did no longer prefer to offend you deluded human beings? Are you fairly idiotic sufficient to no longer be responsive to that homosexuality have been present in over 1500 different animal species there by using indicating this is not a psychological subject? As for breaking down morals, you as quickly as returned coach your idiocy by using no longer taking into attention ethical relativism it is what this question is straight away approximately. Edit To Michael C returned: "Who do you think of is in the back of all the uproar for this reason of California Prop 8? " So for some reason you think of this is alright to no longer enable a definite sect of persons to have rights and you think of they gained't be unhappy approximately it? permit me wager, you positioned on a white pointy hat on the weekends?

Answer 5

Well Leon,

There are two ways of measuring something. Relative and absolute. Sometimes both are useful. When you go into a room of tall people you are not shorter. It just seems that way. Morally, the absolute measures have more utility. You cannot deny either measure because they both exist.

"A wise man seeks to shine in himself; a fool to outshine others. The former is humbled by a sense of his infirmities; the latter is lifted up by the discovery of the faults of others. The wise man considers what he wants; the fool, what he abounds in. The wise man is happy in his own approbation; the fool, in the applause of his fellows."

William Ellery Channing

Answer 6

And the US can be viewed as heros or terrorists. It's a matter of perspective.

Absolutists tend to suffer. I am totally a relativist. It is wrong to lie, for example. However, if a rapist, mugger or hit man starts asking about you, I will lie with no moral or ethical dilemma.

Some South Americans, for example, view Pablo Escobar as a hero who saved many from poverty and disease. The North views him differently. It all depends on your perspective. Even with different cultures and language, but with shared religions there can be differences in perspective.

It's wrong to steal, but in a war, I might steal to feed you and your children. What we can glean that "wrongs" such as lying and stealing can be situational or relativistic.

You are free to be an absolutist if you choose. Please let me know though, as this might impact my choices as I have outlined them.

Answer 7

I'm pretty sure you answered own your question right there. If society thinks that something is ok...then if someone does that accepted thing...then it is ok to them! Back then, the German society thought that killing Jews was ok...so if society, as a whole, thinks that massive genocide is ok...THEN IT IS OBVIOUSLY OK! Just think about it...think about the things that you believe are acceptable...do you see my point now??

Answer 8

If society did not accept genocide, wouldn't Stalin and Mao have been punished?

Answer 9

The morality of murder isn't decided by the murderer; it's decided by all the people who see more value in not being killed themselves, than they do in killing someone else.

Likewise the morality of robbery isn't decided by theives, but by all the people who see more value in keeping their own stuff, than they do in taking another's through force.