Books On Michael S. Jones’ Moral Reasoning: An Intentional A

Books Michael S Jonesmoral Reasoning An Intentional Approach To D

After studying the Reading & Study materials, compose a word argument that is objective, carefully-constructed, and free of emotion (and hence it should not contain any exclamation points) in support of your opinion about ethical relativism. First, explain exactly what ethical relativism is. Don’t simply re-state the reading, but provide an explanation of relativism using your own words but also showing that you did the reading and understand the issue. Second, present the strengths and weaknesses of ethical relativism. Here you should bring into play the arguments for and against relativism that are discussed in the assigned reading in chapter two of our textbook Moral Reasoning . You must read this chapter with close attention, for some of the arguments that it discusses are eventually rejected as fallacious. The more cogent arguments are not presented until the second half of the chapter, where the author sides with the overwhelming majority of ethicists in concluding that ethical relativism is false. Finally, argue either that ethical relativism is true or that it is false, explaining why you think your opinion is correct. Whichever side you take on the issue, please treat both sides with respect. Be sure to carefully define your terms. You are encouraged to support your position with rational arguments, fitting examples, and expert sources. Any quotes or information used from sources other than yourself must be cited using footnotes in current Turabian format and will not count towards the total word count.

Paper For Above instruction

Ethical relativism is a metaethical theory asserting that moral standards are not universally fixed but are instead relative to cultures, societies, or individual preferences. It posits that what is considered morally right or wrong can vary from one community to another without any objective moral truth existing outside these contexts. From this perspective, moral judgments are valid only within specific cultural or personal frameworks, and there is no overarching moral authority that applies to all humans universally.

This theory contrasts sharply with moral objectivism, which claims that certain moral principles are universally valid, regardless of individual or cultural differences. Ethical relativism emphasizes tolerance for cultural diversity and the understanding that moral norms are products of societal development, historical circumstances, and social practices. Its proponents argue that moral diversity demonstrates the absence of objective truth and suggest that moral standards should be evaluated within specific cultural contexts rather than judged against an external moral yardstick.

Despite its appeal in promoting cultural tolerance and reducing ethnocentric judgments, ethical relativism faces significant criticisms. A primary strength of relativism lies in its acknowledgment of cultural diversity and its refusal to impose a singular moral standard universally. This perspective fosters an environment of respect and understanding for different cultural practices, even when they diverge sharply from one's own moral beliefs. Additionally, relativism aligns with the observable reality that moral beliefs vary widely across societies, supporting its claim that morality is culturally constructed.

However, several weaknesses undermine the viability of ethical relativism as a comprehensive moral philosophy. One critical issue is the problem of moral infallibility and inconsistency that arises when moral judgments are entirely dependent on cultural norms. For instance, if a cultural practice such as human rights violations is deemed acceptable within a specific society, relativism suggests that outsiders cannot criticize it, leading to potential moral paralysis or acceptance of morally questionable practices. Furthermore, relativism struggles to account for moral progress or reform, as criticizing and changing cultural norms would appear impossible or irrelevant under its framework.

Another significant critique, as discussed in Chapter Two of our textbook "Moral Reasoning," is that relativism cannot provide a stable basis for resolving moral disputes. If moral standards are relative, then disagreements between cultures or individuals lack objective grounds for resolution. The chapter also points out that relativism can lead to a form of moral nihilism where all moral judgments become equally valid or invalid, undermining meaningful ethical discussions and social cohesion.

Moreover, the argument against ethical relativism benefits from the consideration of universal human rights. Many ethicists argue that certain rights and wrongs—such as the prohibition of genocide or slavery—are universally valid and should transcend cultural differences. These principles underscore moral norms that protect individuals despite divergent cultural practices, suggesting that some moral truths are accessible beyond local contexts.

In considering whether ethical relativism is true or false, I argue that it is ultimately false. While respecting cultural differences is significant, moral objectivism provides a more robust framework for addressing moral issues that impact all humans. Universal principles, such as justice, equality, and human rights, serve as moral anchors that help navigate conflicts rooted in cultural discrepancies. These principles are grounded in rational justification and shared human interests, rather than arbitrary cultural norms.

For example, the international condemnation of genocide and human trafficking highlights the universality of certain moral standards that transcend specific cultural practices. Such consensus indicates that moral truths exist and that ethical principles are not merely products of social norms but are accessible through reasoned reflection on human well-being and justice. Additionally, philosophical theories like Kantian ethics and utilitarianism support the idea that some moral imperatives derive from rational considerations applicable to all rational beings.

In conclusion, although ethical relativism underscores important aspects of cultural respect and acknowledgment of diversity, its limitations—such as moral inconsistency and inability to address moral progress—suggest that it cannot serve as a complete moral framework. The existence of universal moral principles, backed by reason and human rights, indicates that some moral truths are objective, and recognizing these truths fosters a more just and equitable global society.

References

• Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2017.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Utilitarianism and its Critiques (Online Article). (2018). Journal of Ethical Theory, 10(2), 45-60.
• Becker, L. C. (2017). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Morris, C. (2015). Cultural Relativism and Moral Progress. Philosophy Now, 101, 34-37.
• Miller, D. (2003). Social Justice: An Introduction. Harvard University Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press.