This would result in an incredibly selfish society, as everyone would be doing things for the greater good of themselves. Existentialism would have a similar if not worse effect on the world.
This is where individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives and thus could cause anarchic consequences. Relativist theories always require people to make their own decisions. Although this would not be a problem for the majority some people would be especially prone to make wrong decisions that could result in disastrous consequences.
It also would result in inconsistency as there would be no laws and each decision would depend on each situation. It allows one thing for one person and something different for another.
Lastly, it would allow prejudices to come in. If people are allowed to make their own decisions then there will always be someone who disagree with them. This would result in prejudice that could have a large negative impact on the state of the world.
One of a cornucopia of reasons people find relativist theories are fair is utilitarianism. It is a theory, which results in the good for the majority of people.
This would mean that decisions would be made on what would have the greatest impact, which would result in a very fair and selfless society. Also, relativism leads to more respect for people, as they have to make their own decisions. It would mean people would now have a chance to think for themselves. This would surely mean that people would be able to express their opinions on things more openly and thus would result in faster development of society. It would allow society to move on, as there would be no fixed rules.
Situation ethics a relative theory is where love agape is the only absolute. It is easy to understand and can constantly be upgraded for new problems. It also focuses on humans and concerns for others. It allows people to take responsibility for their own decisions and make up their own minds about what is right or wrong.
Both opinions have sufficient ground for argument but I personally believe that it is fair to an extent. I do believe it is fairer than absolutism but there are still some fundamental flaws. I believe that it would be incredibly hard to condemn different crimes as in different circumstances it may not be seen as bad. Although thanks to utilitarianism some people would do things for the greater amount of people some egoists would do what is best for them.
Get Full Access Now. See related essays. Our present course ensures a time when the state will have to provide prison issue diapers.
Leaders of other nations, political and religious organizations across the globe, and even the Pope himself have asked for stays of execution for certain prisoners and nearly all in recent memory have been ignored. The evidence is usually: scientific e. FGM is practised in many countries in Africa and also in Kurdistan.
If our moral rules work for us and theirs work for them, then there is nothing wrong with that. We can't judge them as being morally corrupt as their morals work for them. This leads us to be a more tolerant society. The opposing view is deep ecology, which is an approach that believes that all life forms have intrinsic value and the theory rejects anthropocentric viewpoints.
Leopold believes that humans shouldn? The rules are broken when the positive effects of breaking the rule outweigh the positive effects of following it. For instance, killing a man may be justified if it would save the lives of other people. A persons beliefs arise from their own personal circumstances.
As time progresses the community, who have been equally influenced by their environment and history etc. Over time there can be radical shifts in perception and traditional norms are seen as wrong, an example of this is homosexuality, in under. Kaplan, D. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals.
Almog, J. Wettstein Eds. Kaya, S. Outgroup prejudice from an evolutionary perspective: Survey evidence from Europe. Kim, H. Relativism, absolutism, and tolerance. Metaphilosophy, 34 , — Kluckhohn, C. Ethical relativity. Sic et non.
The Journal of Philosophy, 52 23 , — Knobe, J. An experimental philosophy manifesto. Experimental philosophy Vol. Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 1 , 53— Kukla, A. Does every theory have empirically equivalent rivals? Erkenntnis, 44 2 , — Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 3 , Kurzban, R. Managing ingroup and outgroup relationships. Buss Ed. Hoboken: Wiley. Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98 26 , — Ladyman, J. Understanding philosophy of science. Psychology Press. Laudan, L. Demystifying underdetermination.
Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14 , — Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy, 88 9 , — Lillehammer, H. Debunking morality: Evolutionary naturalism and moral error theory. Biology and Philosophy, 18 4 , — Lipton, P. Inference to the best explanation.
Psillos Eds. New York: Routledge. Machery, E. Evolution of morality. Doris et al. Mahajan, N. The evolution of intergroup bias: Perceptions and attitudes in rhesus macaques.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 , Mason, K. Debunking arguments and the genealogy of religion and morality. Philosophy Compass, 5 9 , — McCright, A. The Sociological Quarterly, 52 2 , — McKinnon, C. Toleration: A critical introduction. London: Routledge. Meiland, J. Relativism: Cognitive and moral. Millhouse, T. The containment problem and the evolutionary debunking of morality. Hansen Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Mogensen, A.
Do evolutionary debunking arguments rest on a mistake about evolutionary explanations? Philosophical Studies, 7 , — Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Ethics. University of Oxford.
Contingency anxiety and the epistemology of disagreement. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 97 4 , — Moody-Adams, M. The empirical underdetermination of descriptive cultural relativism. Fieldwork in familiar places: Morality, culture, and philosophy. Newton-Smith, W. The underdetermination of theory by data. Aristotelian Society Supplementary , 52 1 , 71— Nichols Ed. Experimental Philosophy pp. Nussbaum, M. Non-relative virtues: An Aristotelian approach.
Sen Eds. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Obeyesekere, G. Methodological and philosophical relativism. Man, 1 3 , — Park, J. Evolutionary perspectives on intergroup prejudice: Implications for promoting tolerance.
Roberts Ed. Peters, U. Evolution, moral justification, and moral realism. Rivista Italiana di Filosofi a Analitica-Junior, 3 1 , 8— Pojman, L. Sommers Eds. New York: Harcourt Publishers. Prinz, J. The emotional construction of morals. Against moral nativism. Bishop Eds. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Where do morals come from? Christen, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer, C. Rachels, J. The challenge of cultural relativism.
Rai, T. Exposure to moral relativism compromises moral behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49 6 , — Ratner, K. Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces: Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 , Rawls, J. A theory of justice. Rorty, R. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers Vol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rovane, C. Relativism requires alternatives, not disagreement or relative truth.
Hales Ed. The metaphysics and ethics of telativism. Rutland, A. A new social-cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice the interplay between morality and group identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 3 , — Sampson, R. Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44 3 , — Sayre-McCord, G.
Moral realism. Schacht, R. Patterns of family formation in response to sex ratio variation. PloS One, 11 8 , e Too many men: The violence problem?
Schafer, K. Evolution and normative scepticism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88 3 , — Schaller, M. The behavioral immune system and why it matters. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 20 2 , 99— Schurz, G. The is-ought problem: An investigation in philosophical logic Vol. Sellaro, R. Reducing prejudice through brain stimulation. Brain Stimulation, 8 5 , — Shafer-Landau, R.
Evolutionary debunking, moral realism, and moral knowledge. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 7 1 , 1— Sinnott-Armstrong, W. Are moral judgments unified? Philosophical Psychology, 27 4 , — Skarsaune, K.
Darwin and moral realism: Survival of the iffiest. Sklar, L. Methodological conservatism. According to the relativist both the Sudanese approval and the Western horror of female circumcision are simply different viewpoints that are both correct within different cultural frameworks.
Many have embraced relativism as a philosophy because of the seeming correlation between relativism and tolerance. However, despite appearances, the relativist position is no more tolerant than the absolutist position.
Moral and cultural relativism are currently in vogue, yet might we hope for something better? Could we find something less subjective than human whims and the feeling of the majority to which society can align its moral compass? The Christian worldview offers another such option — it insists that God created the world and so his own character shapes reality.
Ethics, then, are not a matter of feeling or democracy; they derive objectively from the one who is apart from culture, independent from individual psychology and who, for all time, has stood at the centre of the universe.
0コメント