Page 2 Concept of ethical relativism Essay

Some psychologists, such as Haidt, take morality to include concernwith, at least, all three of the triad of (1) harm, (2) purity, and(3) loyalty, and hold that different members of a society can and dotake different features of morality to be most important. Mostsocieties have moralities that are concerned with, at least, all threemembers of this triad. Concern with harm appears in the form ofenforceable rules against killing, causing pain, mutilating, etc. Butbeyond a concern with avoiding and preventing such harms to members ofcertain groups, there may be no common content shared by allmoralities in the descriptive sense. Nor may there be any commonjustification that those who accept morality claim for it; some mayappeal to religion, others to tradition, and others to rational humannature. Beyond the concern with harm mentioned above, the only otherfeatures that all descriptive moralities have in common is that theyare put forward by an individual or a group, usually a society, inwhich case they provide a guide for the behavior of the people in thatgroup or society. In this descriptive sense of “morality”,morality might allow slavery or might allow people with one skin coloror gender to behave in ways that those with a different skin color orgender are not allowed to behave. In this descriptive sense of“morality”, morality may not even incorporate impartialitywith regard to all moral agents, and it may not be universalizable inany significant way (compare MacIntyre 1957).

the variable and relative of the moral is not our concept, ..

Is morality really a neutral concept

Related Post of Morality is relative essay;

Most moral realists who offer moral theories do not bother to offeranything like a definition of morality. Instead, what thesephilosophers offer is a theory of the nature and justification of aset of norms with which they take their audience already to beacquainted. In effect, they tacitly pick morality out by reference tocertain salient and relative uncontroversial bits of its content: thatit prohibits killing, stealing, deceiving, cheating, and so on. Infact, this would not be a bad way of defining morality, if the pointof such a definition were only to be relatively theory-neutral, and toallow theorizing to begin. We could call it “thereference-fixing definition” or “the substantivedefinition”.

Is Morality Relative or Universal Coursework - Essay …

One concept of rationality that supports the exclusion of sexualmatters, at least at the basic level, from the norms of morality, isthat for an action to count as irrational it must be an act that harmsoneself without producing a compensating benefit forsomeone—perhaps oneself, perhaps someone else. Such an accountof rationality might be called “hybrid”, since it givesdifferent roles to self-interest and to altruism. An account ofmorality based on the hybrid concept of rationality could agree withHobbes (1660) that morality is concerned with promoting people livingtogether in peace and harmony, which includes obeying the rulesprohibiting causing harm to others. Although moral prohibitionsagainst actions that cause harm or significantly increase the risk ofharm are not absolute, in order to avoid acting immorally,justification is always needed when violating these prohibitions. Kant(1797) seems to hold that it is never justified to violate some ofthese prohibitions, e.g., the prohibition against lying. This islargely a result of the fact that Kant’s (1785) concept ofrationality is purely formal, in contrast with the hybrid concept ofrationality described above.

There are two types of morality that affect the decisions people make - absolute morality and relative morality.
Godly wise stewards must also understand the intimate relationship between moral laws and economic cause and effect.

Read this essay on Rs - Absolute and Relative Morality Ethics

It is possible to hold that having a certain sort of social goal isdefinitional of morality (Frankena 1963). Stephen Toumlin (1950) tookit to be the harmony of society. Baier (1958) took it to be “thegood of everyone alike”. Utilitarians sometimes claim it is theproduction of the greatest good. Gert (2005) took it to be thelessening of evil or harm. This latter goal may seem to be asignificant narrowing of the utilitarian claim, but utilitariansalways include the lessening of harm as essential to producing thegreatest good and almost all of their examples involve the avoiding orpreventing of harm. In favor of the focus on lessening harm, it isnotable that the paradigm cases of moral rules are those that prohibitcausing harm directly or indirectly, such as rules prohibitingkilling, causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises. Even thoseprecepts that require or encourage positive action, such as helpingthe needy, are almost always related to preventing or relieving harms,rather than promoting goods such as pleasure. It should be clear thatall rational persons would include these paradigm moral precepts inthe moral code that they would put forward to guide the behavior ofall moral agents. The question is whether they would also includeprecepts that require or encourage the promotion of positive benefitswhen such benefits do not count as the relieving of deprivation. Forexample, if they would include a moral precept encouraging people tobe more entertaining or to cook tastier meals, then Gert would bewrong.

If one believes tolerance to be of ultimate value, he or she will be quick to accept the argument for moral relativism.

Morality Is a Relative Concept.

Sometimes morality is confused with religion and I have written aboutthat .But for purposes of this essay, it will not matter whether someone's moralprinciples are based on religious doctrine or commands or not. The importanttraits will be the soundness, and perceived soundness, of any moral principles,not their genesis.

Morality and religion is the relationship between religious For example, ..

The concept of relativism can be ..

To obey and live within these eternal principles of human action or conduct is to bring about harmony, peace, economic prosperity, and liberty (James 1:25).As Michael Novak put it: “Virtue can hardly help bearing material fruit The relation of Creator to creation would otherwise seem odd.”6 Many verses attest to a relationship between moral law and economic well-being (Job 36:11; Psalms 1:1-3; Joshua 1:8).Living in defiance of these moral laws is the definition of sin: “ for sin is the transgression of the law.” (I John 3:4).