Deep discussion Inbound: Moral Relativism
So by now I hope you have all read my first entry on this blog of mine and if not well then welcome to you. This blog has no "theme" it has not "genre" its simply things that are on my mind at the moment and as of right now I have just recently finished watching season 1 episode 14 of the flash and one of the main characters is doing bad stuff because he is thinking of the bigger picture that is to occur in the future. Yeah its time travel and yeah its complicated so I'll just leave it at that.
I personally just want to talk about Morality and Ethics because after seeing the characters "do whatever it takes" attitude I started thinking more. So here you go. Enjoy!
I personally just want to talk about Morality and Ethics because after seeing the characters "do whatever it takes" attitude I started thinking more. So here you go. Enjoy!
I believe no one can really say they are a full on Moral relativist. Moral relativism branches out to three different categories: Descriptive Relativism, Meta-ethical Relativism, and Normative Relativism. Each form of relativism has its own pros and cons and I will have different opinions respectively.
Descriptive Relativism states that modes of thought and other opinions are formulated based on each cultures own norms, going hand in hand with cultural relativism. The truth behind statements such as “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” stating that only one who can see the beauty in oneself can they see the beauty of all things. I believe in this concept as I can discuss firsthand how a culture can be vastly different from other cultures and still be accepted. My example stems from my area of expertise of Indian philosophy and Indian religions. Religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism all believe in the cultural thought that any form of God is perfectly fine to worship or learn from as long as there is Human thought. In most western thought, they are more familiar with the concepts of religions based on faith i.e. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It’s sad to say but a majority of these religions will be under the impression of “this religion is the right one” or “this God is the only God.” But when stating from a philosophical perspective one can see that these religions are not looking down upon other religions. They have just developed a form of descriptive relativism. Being a Hindu myself I must state that I agree with this concept.
Meta-ethical Relativism is truth behind what a group or majority says strength in numbers and a universal idea. Questions stating “what s truly right vs. wrong in this context?” or “Are these choices the correct choices?” Now this concept here is relatively obscure for my understanding. The theory is based on the fact that it’s a group thought and decisions that affect their overall choices but in this area I pose a question; isn’t the group itself part of an ever-changing cultural melting pot? Thinking through this, it makes sense, and as such makes me just think of meta-ethical relativism as just a smaller branch off of Descriptive relativism.
Lastly, there is normative relativism; this aspect of moral relativism is the faultiest. The theory states that there are no moral norms or obligations and that all of which is right and wrong is completely pointless to analyze as its completely different form society to society. Now the theory does make some sense in that the societies DO change, but the ideas that stem from society don’t change. Take for example New York City and a small village in Africa. They are two completely different societies. Normative relativism states that choices of what is right and wrong are going to be completely different because they what is right and wrong is relativisticly normal to their own society. Now think this, a man goes into a bar in NYC and kills someone, why? Because he was bored. Similarly, a man walks into a hut in Africa and kills someone, why? Because, he too is bored. Wouldn't what is right and wrong still be clearly defined whether you’re in NYC or Africa? Based on their societies is killing someone because they are bored universally right? Well see this is where there is more confusion, if you are reading this in the US you would think it’s wrong. Why? Because that is how our society works and how we are brought up, via society or parents, etc. Now what if this was being read by a country where killing someone is morally ok? They would think its ok. See, choices in normative relativism don’t just have to be from society alone but from the people which make up the society as well. So, in a sense normative relativism, basically is a loophole in its self, hence the fault.
Overall, I guess I am a moral relativist, in the case I focus on Descriptive relativism. While there is meta-ethics in which some thoughts make sense, I still find normative relativism as wrong and faulted and thus impractical. So yes, I am a moral relativist, but I guess I’m not at the same time. Moral Philosophy seems rather complex doesn’t it?
Meta-ethical Relativism is truth behind what a group or majority says strength in numbers and a universal idea. Questions stating “what s truly right vs. wrong in this context?” or “Are these choices the correct choices?” Now this concept here is relatively obscure for my understanding. The theory is based on the fact that it’s a group thought and decisions that affect their overall choices but in this area I pose a question; isn’t the group itself part of an ever-changing cultural melting pot? Thinking through this, it makes sense, and as such makes me just think of meta-ethical relativism as just a smaller branch off of Descriptive relativism.
Lastly, there is normative relativism; this aspect of moral relativism is the faultiest. The theory states that there are no moral norms or obligations and that all of which is right and wrong is completely pointless to analyze as its completely different form society to society. Now the theory does make some sense in that the societies DO change, but the ideas that stem from society don’t change. Take for example New York City and a small village in Africa. They are two completely different societies. Normative relativism states that choices of what is right and wrong are going to be completely different because they what is right and wrong is relativisticly normal to their own society. Now think this, a man goes into a bar in NYC and kills someone, why? Because he was bored. Similarly, a man walks into a hut in Africa and kills someone, why? Because, he too is bored. Wouldn't what is right and wrong still be clearly defined whether you’re in NYC or Africa? Based on their societies is killing someone because they are bored universally right? Well see this is where there is more confusion, if you are reading this in the US you would think it’s wrong. Why? Because that is how our society works and how we are brought up, via society or parents, etc. Now what if this was being read by a country where killing someone is morally ok? They would think its ok. See, choices in normative relativism don’t just have to be from society alone but from the people which make up the society as well. So, in a sense normative relativism, basically is a loophole in its self, hence the fault.
Overall, I guess I am a moral relativist, in the case I focus on Descriptive relativism. While there is meta-ethics in which some thoughts make sense, I still find normative relativism as wrong and faulted and thus impractical. So yes, I am a moral relativist, but I guess I’m not at the same time. Moral Philosophy seems rather complex doesn’t it?
Comments
Post a Comment