User:Atcovi/Ethics/Lecture3

Credits: Prof Castleberry

Moral Relativism
Universal morals: A set of principles that applies to cultures world-wide. For example, lying is generally a negative trait despite it possibly being permissible in a certain culture. But since this cannot be consensually decided upon, moral relativism is accepted as a better alternative.

Subjectivism
What is right for me is right while what is right for you is right. What is 'moral' is up to the individual. This can be problematic, as in the case of one who does/doesn't give back a lost wallet. Though, this comes to the advantage of tolerantism & is popular according to our very diverse society.

Nihilist: "No such thing as a moral standard. Who cares if you give back the wallet or not - there are no moral standards. Its just something humans have made up to suit them"

Relativist: "There is such thing as a moral standard, it just depends on yourself. The moral standard is dependent on you"

But the disadvantages are obvious. Are mass shootings right because the shooters believe that they are right? How can one argue that stealing a wallet is wrong if the thief believes it was right? Are you right all the time?

Cultural Relativism
Things are wrong according to their culture. Mass shootings are wrong because American culture goes against them. Though, this can be problematic as some cultures may believe human sacrifices are right.

The advantages are obvious with this: Culture generally influences the way one views things, so this makes sense. This does appeal to tolerance.

Though: Cultures that allow human sacrifices are right in their culture. Moral critics have no place in history (Gandhi, MLK). Does the majority always have to take #1 spot in legislating rules? What exactly is a culture (Twitter vs. the Mayans)? Intolerance could be in a culture, does that make their intolerance... tolerant?