Ethical Relativism

Topic B: Ethical Relativism

Think about all of the pros and cons of ethical relativism. Discuss what you feel is the best aspect of the theory and what you feel is the biggest negative. Also, see if you can use the theory to develop a plan for guiding future behavior, how the theory can inform you in any situation as to what is the right and moral thing to do.

KEY TAKEAWAYS BEFORE ATTEMPTING THIS ASSIGNMENT

Introduction

Ethical relativism is a form of moral skepticism that challenges the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs. The term “ethical relativism” was coined in the 1950s by a Danish philosopher named Søren Kierkegaard, but it has since been used by many other writers who share his view on how to answer questions about morality. Kierkegaard believed that all of our beliefs about right and wrong should be based on individual experience rather than universal standards provided by society or religion. He called this approach “subjectivity,” and he advocated it because he believed it would lead us back to something closer to what people actually want from their lives: freedom from obligation rather than obligation itself!

Background

Relativism is a form of moral skepticism that challenges the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs. It claims that there is no objective, universal morality.

There are two main types of relativism: ethical relativism and cultural relativism. Ethical relativists believe that each person has their own unique set of values and beliefs based on their particular upbringing and experiences within society; this means there are no universal rules or standards for how people should act in situations where different cultures encounter one another (e.g., when traveling abroad). Cultural relativists hold the opposite view — they believe that while we may all share some basic rights like freedom from coercion or discrimination, we also have different needs due to our differing backgrounds; therefore it makes sense for us all not always agree on what constitutes “right” behavior in any given situation!

Characteristics of ethical relativism

Ethical relativism is a form of moral skepticism that challenges the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs. Relativists argue that there are no absolute truths about ethics or values, but rather only relative ones—that is, they are true only in particular circumstances or cultures. For example, if you were born in North Korea, then I might think it’s wrong for me to eat meat; however, if you were born in Canada and grew up eating meat every day (and didn’t know any better), then it wouldn’t make sense for me to tell you not do so. In other words, relativism relies on context as well as personal experience when trying to determine what constitutes right behavior versus wrong behavior—a concept known as contextualism.*

Relativism as a form of moral skepticism

Relativism is a form of moral skepticism. It challenges the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs, including those that have been accepted by many cultures throughout history. Relativism is also skeptical about the ability to make any generalizations about what it means to be “good” or “evil,” because each individual has their own unique set of experiences with life, culture and morality.

Relativists believe that there are no absolute truths or universal standards when it comes to ethics—we must look at each situation on its own merits (or lack thereof), rather than using any one belief system as an all-encompassing guide for personal behavior in every situation possible.

Relativism’s challenges to universal validity and objectivity

Relativism is a form of moral skepticism that challenges the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs. It can be described as a position that holds that there are no objective ethical values, but rather it is only our experiences that shape our opinions about what is right or wrong.

Relativism has been challenged on at least two fronts: first, by philosophers who believe in the existence of absolute truths; second by those who view relativism as being a form of skepticism (or even nihilism).

The challenge from these two camps is similar in nature: if there aren’t any absolute truths then how can you know what’s right or wrong? How do you know whether your belief about something like murder or theft should be considered morally questionable? How do you determine whether someone else’s decision was correct when they disagreed with yours? These questions have lead many philosophers over time to reject outright any claim made by those holding views similar to those espoused by contemporary thinkers who advocate ethical relativism.

Conflicts with religious views on morality and ethics

Relativism is a form of moral skepticism that challenges the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs. Relativists regard it as epistemically unjustified to believe that there are true answers to questions about right and wrong, good and evil, or virtue or vice. They hold that there are no objective determinants for these kinds of judgments; instead they are dependent on individual experiences and preferences which can vary dramatically between individuals.

Relativism conflicts with religious views on morality and ethics because it challenges their claim to be able to identify moral truths beyond one’s own experience or perspective (i.e., from God).

Ethical relativism is a form of moral skepticism that challenges the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs.

The basic idea behind ethical relativism is that there are no absolute truths in ethics—there are only competing sets of values, which can be weighed against each other to determine which ones you should take into account when making decisions. For example, if you value your family’s happiness over your career success, then it would be wrong for you to choose a job where they would both suffer because it would result in your own unhappiness as well (this is known as “the” tradeoff dilemma). However, this does not mean that we should never hold ourselves accountable for our actions; rather than choosing between these two options at all times or never choosing between them at all times (which would also be problematic), people should adopt an ethical stance based on their situation or context and use this as a guide when making choices about how much importance they place on different factors during decision making processes.

Conclusion

We have seen that ethical relativism is a form of moral skepticism, which questions the validity and objectivity of many normative beliefs. It challenges universal validity and objectivity in many ways, as well as conflicts with religious views on morality and ethics. There are two main ways in which it challenges these principles:

by questioning whether or not we can know what’s right or wrong; and
by questioning whether or not we can know how to be good people – after all, everyone has different ideas about what constitutes goodness! Moral relativism argues that our judgements about rightness and wrongness are based on personal preferences rather than objective facts about the world around us; therefore there isn’t one correct answer for everyone.

WOULD YOU LIKE A CUSTOM ESSAY JUST FOR YOU?

Get Assignment Help- Confidentially!

Why Choose Ace Writing Center?

***Absolutely NO Plagiarism.

***All writing is original.

***Guaranteed Top Grade.

***24/7 Support

***100% Money Back Guarantee

***Free revision