Assignment 2: Ethical Moral Relativism In America

Assignment 2 Ethical Moral Relativismin America Many Are Comfortab

Assignment 2: Ethical (Moral) Relativism in America. Many are comfortable describing ethics as follows: “Well, what’s right for me is right for me and what’s right for you is right for you. Let’s just agree to disagree.” This is an affirmation of what philosophers call individual or subjective moral relativism. In this understanding of relativism, morality is a matter of individual feelings and personal preference. In individual moral relativism, the determination of what is right and wrong in a situation varies according to the individual. Moral relativists do not believe in natural law or universal truths.

Cultural moral relativism puts culture at the forefront of relative ethical decision-making. It says the individual must include the precepts of his or her culture as a prominent part of the relativistic moral action. Lawrence Kohlberg, a prominent psychologist known for recognizing moral stages of development, takes it a step farther by suggesting that cultural relativists are persons stuck in the “Conventional Stage” of ethical development.

Paper For Above instruction

The concepts of individual and cultural moral relativism are pivotal in understanding contemporary ethical perspectives, especially within the pluralistic society of America. Individual moral relativism asserts that morality is subjective, contingent on personal feelings and preferences. This viewpoint emphasizes that what an individual considers morally right can vary extensively without universally binding standards. For example, one person might believe that honesty is always essential, while another might justify dishonesty under certain circumstances, based solely on personal convictions (Trevino & Nelson, 2017).

Conversely, cultural moral relativism emphasizes that morality is rooted in cultural norms and values. It suggests that an individual's ethical decisions should conform to the accepted standards of their cultural context. For instance, in some cultures, collectivism and community harmony are prioritized over individual autonomy, shaping moral judgments accordingly. Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development lends a psychological framework to these ideas. Kohlberg postulates that individuals evolve through stages of moral reasoning, with the “Conventional Stage” characterized by adherence to social norms and rules. He criticizes cultural relativism as potentially static, implying that individuals, once in the conventional stage, may be unable to progress toward universal moral principles (Kohlberg, 1984).

The key difference between individual and cultural moral relativism lies in their scope: the former centers on personal feelings and choices, whereas the latter emphasizes societal and cultural standards. Strengths of individual relativism include respect for personal autonomy and diversity of moral perspectives, fostering tolerance in multicultural societies. Its weakness, however, is that it can justify unethical behaviors if aligned with individual preferences, leading to moral relativism’s notorious critique of moral chaos. Cultural relativism's strength is its recognition of cultural diversity and respect for cultural differences. However, its weakness is the potential suppression of universal human rights and ethical standards, which may lead to conflicting judgments and cultural relativism’s potential to justify oppressive traditions (Benedict, 1934).

Regarding Kohlberg’s stance, I believe his developmental perspective provides valuable insight into moral reasoning’s evolution but underestimates the capacity for moral growth outside conventional norms. I generally side with the view that moral development can transcend mere conformity, aspiring toward higher principles of justice and human rights (Gilligan, 1982).

Personally, I align more with aspects of individual relativism in my ethical approach, emphasizing personal responsibility, empathy, and the importance of context in moral decisions. I agree with the notion that morality can be flexible and nuanced, recognizing that circumstances influence what may be considered morally right or wrong. For instance, in a moral dilemma at work involving honesty versus loyalty, I prioritized loyalty to a colleague’s dignity, even if it conflicted with strict honesty. This decision reflected my belief that ethical considerations involve balancing principles and relationships rather than adhering rigidly to rules (Kidder, 2005).

In conclusion, while both individual and cultural moral relativism offer valuable perspectives on the diversity of moral judgments, they also present significant limitations. A balanced ethical outlook acknowledges the importance of personal convictions and cultural contexts but also recognizes the necessity of universal moral principles related to human rights and dignity. Recognizing the stages of moral development, as Kohlberg suggests, can promote a more nuanced understanding of moral growth beyond socially dictated norms.

References

• Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Houghton Mifflin.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development. Harper & Row.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values Are Done. Jossey-Bass.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right. Wiley.