| Papers [1-15] of 56 :: [Page 1 of 4] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 —> | Search results on "MORAL RELATIVISM": |
|
|
The Shifting Sand of Moral Relativism, 2004.
An analysis of why moral relativism should not be entrenched in the political culture.
1,602 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how current political and social thought, which is built on the foundation of moral relativism, cannot chart a path for a nation to follow out of confusion into an enlightened and orderly society. The tools, talents, skills, and abilities of moral relativism are completely inadequate for leading a nation. In particular, it looks at how Leo Strauss is one of the few modern philosophers who understood that moral relativism is a source of evil in the world and cannot produce a just and fair society.
From the Paper
"The founders of our country understood the relationship between the need for a moral people and the effects on a nation of immoral leaders. Ben Franklin is quoted as saying ?Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." John Adams wrote in the Federalist Papers, ?We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Franklin and Adams knew the legacy which political leaders such as Hitler, Clinton, or Hussein would leave behind - a willingness to pursue their own desires at the expense of others, and the political power to justify or hide their actions from public scrutiny."
| |
|
Moral Relativism, 2008.
A debate on the pros and cons of moral relativism.
1,345 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses whether or not moral relativism is correct or not. The writer presents both sides of the argument and includes opinions of several authorities on the subject. The paper concludes with the writer's own opinion on moral relativism.
Outline:
The "Yes" Side
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opinion
From the Paper
"Throughout history, different people at different times and places have held divergent, sometimes opposing, moral views, even within the same society (Harman 1996). The ancient Greeks once strongly believed, for instance, that their god Zeus produced thunder. That science changed that strong belief. Today's Greek people will ascribe thunder to natural causes and conditions. This shows that what a particular society or individual strongly believes in or observes can and does change when new and convincing evidence demands that change. Another example is the origin and nature of black holes, which have not yet been scientifically explained. The dictates of morality appear to proceed from convention or understanding among people of a particular era and place. The fact is that people within that particular era and place themselves form different shades of understanding even about a specific matter. There appears to be no strict, basic or generalized moral demands or requirements for differences in understanding or view about something. Because people's beliefs are relative, it follows that their behavioral norms, described as ethics, are also relative. Thus it is correct to say that morality and ethics, which are determined or perceived individually and subjectively, are also individual and subjective rather than absolute (Harman)."
| |
|
Moral Relativism, 2003.
A look at the concept of moral relativism from a general perspective.
1,134 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how moral relativism is the view that moral standards are grounded only in social custom, an ethical judgement and how moral relativists believe that absolute moral laws do not exist but, that society deems whether an action to be right or wrong. It also looks at how the position taken by moral relativism can in my opinion be classified into two branches, subjectivism and conventionalism.
From the Paper
"First of all, we might dispute whether there really is as much cultural variation of beliefs concerning morality as moral relativists offer. Within western culture there are without doubt a set of morals that governs, there are diversities however, they are dwarfed by the similarities. How many moral issues are different between the cultures of England and France? Many moral relativists would argue against this by saying that England and France are part of the same culture. In my opinion, they are different culture with similar if not the same moral values. This destroys the position of the moral relativists. Moral relativists tend to ignore the similarities between differing cultures and focus too heavily on the diversity."
| |
|
Nietzsche: Moral Relativism, 2005.
Examines moral relativism in the philosophy of Nietzsche.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper it is shown that Nietzsche reflects moral relativism through the framework of virtue, moral and societal conditions that affect and limit the Overman. In this manner, humankind's ability to see beyond social norms and religious trickery are described in his vision to free the mind from false truths which scholars and elite religious authorities impose on the masses. The paper shows that in this manner, moral relativism is a correct view of life, in which Nietzsche prescribes with logic and reasoning on moral values in society.
From the Paper
"The basis of moral relativism in the work of Nietzsche will be analyzed in relation to the outward societal standards that create these values and institutions. The basis of knowledge determines how mankind creates moral values in relation this society and conditions that preside alongside law. In this manner, Nietzsche correctly portends that moral relativism is the basis for morality and ethics in society, and is not based on a truth any greater than man's invention of these behaviors and codes of conduct. The premise of "The Three Metamorphoses" in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra reflects the basis of moral relativism in rejecting all outside sources of information that may corrupt the inward self. In this manner, one must be able to reject what is taught, and seek one's own sense of what is "right and wrong" in society."
| |
|
Theory of Relativism, 2004.
Discusses the viewpoint of Gilbert Harmon towards the theory of relativism.
1,058 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed examination of one theory of relativism as discussed by Gilbert Harmon. The writer of this paper uses a published article by Harmon to showcase his ideas about inner judgments and the basis for morality, as well as other aspects of relativism. The writer also explores the cornerstones of Harmon?s defense of a sophisticated form of moral relativism.
From the Paper
"Throughout history the theory of relativism has been debated in many circles. Some believe that relativism is a term that means nothing because it does not exist, while others believe it goes back to the basics of human nature. One expert believes that relativism can be discussed in its logical form and has explored his ideas about the sophisticated form of moral relativism(Harmon, 1975). Gilbert Harmon is well known for his exploration of the theory of relativism and according to Harmon relativism is intricately tied to society?s sophisticated evolvement in the area of morality. Harmon explores the motivating factors and the decisions that go into creating judgments as well as the elements he believes determine the current relativism definition that he has created(Harmon, 1975)."
| |
|
Ethical Egoism and Ethical Relativism, 2002.
Examines the positions of ethical egoism and relativism about morality of individual action and their validity in the contemporary discourse of philosophy.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper shows that ethical egoism underlies a fundamental assumption of self-interest and happiness whereas ethical relativism holds that morality is relative to the norms of society.
| |
|
Cultural Relativism, 2008.
This paper discusses the topic of morality, focusing specifically on whether morality exists and what makes something moral from a cultural relativistic point of view.
1,003 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the topic of morality. Specifically, it asserts that a decent human being is not one who accepts transient consensus about what attitudes are normal and what practices are unjust. If anything, what counts as a decent human being is the independent moral decency to ignore transient consensus and societal attitudes to whatever extent transient consensus and societal attitudes obviously violate objective principles of fundamental fairness, equity, human empathy, and decency.
From the Paper
"Considering the way that social convention arises in the first place provides another reason to reject the suggestion that social convention is a reliable determinant of what constitutes moral conduct and what distinguishes it from immoral conduct. Among a small isolated group of people, (such as a group of 20 individuals stranded on an island), social convention probably does reflect true majority consensus. Not that majority consensus necessarily corresponds to morality, but that would be the only possible logical basis for defining morality through social convention at all. Even in a group of 20 individuals, it is still possible that the minority position is more moral (objectively) than that of the majority, but at least the majority position does, in fact, reflect the desires of the true majority."
| |
|
Relativism, 2002.
A discussion of the concept of relativism, the idea that nothing is absolute and that there is no view that is absolutely true.
1,701 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the problems generated by the often-unconscious embracing of contemporary relativist philosophy. It defines the varieties of relativism which are at work in the every-day world of American culture and examines how philosophical relativism has, indeed, caused problems in society. It shows how many of our contemporary beliefs and behaviors have an underlying relativist justification and explains why relativism is called "incoherent" by its critics and attacks the relativist stand. Finally, it sets out to discover whether or not there are ways in which certain branches of relativism can be seen as arguably acceptable as a limited set of philosophical principles.
From the Paper
"Another popular branch of relativism is called "cognitive relativism." This belief system asserts that any epistemological framework is necessarily produced by cultural constructs or beliefs, and as such, is relative. The important ideas of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty have all contributed to the powerful hold relativism has had on contemporary culture. (Westacot, "Relativism" 1). Several reasons are put forward for the rise of relativism in the twentieth century. These include the acceptance that one?s own view may be subjective, and that others have a right to their own, very different views; people have a growing awareness, due to research in anthropology and linguistics, that people in different cultures view the world with vastly different cultural frameworks; and, finally, social relativism reflects the working out of the full implications of Kant?s Copernican Revolution in metaphysics and the work of Thomas Kuhn and the philosophy of science."
| |
|
The Nature and Validity of Relativism, 2002.
Discussion of the philosophy of "Relativism" as viewed by Protagoras and Plato.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Relativism, although it contains several variants, can be succinctly defined as the viewpoint that no objective standards of good and bad, right and wrong, can be discovered by mankind, and that, furthermore, no objective knowledge of the world is available to us either. This paper explores the validity of relativism by looking at the Philosopher's Protagoras' definition as well as his beliefs on the topic. Plato's views are also discussed on this topic.
| |
|
Cultural Relativism in Philosophy, 2002.
A discussion of the views of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas on cultural relativism.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper investigates the topic of cultural relativism in philosophy, and explores this ethical issue in the context of arguments made by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
| |
|
Relationalism vs. Relativism, 2002.
A discussion of the concepts and differences between cultural relationalism and relativism.
716 words (approx. 2.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the theory of cultural relativism which holds that whatever a culture values or assesses as right is what is valuable or right. It looks at how this stands in contrast to relationalism, which holds that what is important is not what the individual or the culture holds to be valuable or right, what the individual or the culture would hold to be valuable or right if the individual were enlightened or the culture were comprised of enlightened individuals.
From the Paper
"The members of a culture, because of the means whereby folkways are formed and believed and followed, must follow those folkways because they are true, because they follow them, because they are true, ad infinitum. There is nothing in Sumner's Social Relativism which allows for any subtlety or possibility beyond the "folkways": "The notion of right is in the folkways"; "In the folkways, whatever is, is right"; "When we come to the folkways we are at the end of our analysis" (Sumner 32). Again, to Sumner, nothing matters beyond what exists."
| |
|
The Truth in Ethical Relativism, 2002.
A comparative essay of the truth behind ethical relativism.
1,850 words (approx. 7.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the many problems with ethical relativisim. The major flaw of the theory, that it fails to recognize that many societies have specific reasons for holding the views it does is examined. The ethical relativist?s theory states that an inquiry into the right and wrong must be made through a critical examination of the practices and beliefs of the society and one must look for connections for the underlying universal truths. The author shows why the theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs from an ethical relativist?s point of view fails to do so.
From the Paper
"It would be only logical to start of any philosophical essay with an explanation of what the paper is to be discussing; in this case, Ethical relativism. The entire process of any Philosophical approach is that of logic. When discussing ethical relativism, there are two rather simple sides to the argument. Although simple, they are none the less extremely important. Ethical relativism is the thesis that ethical principles or judgments are relative to the individual or culture. To many people when stated so vaguely, it is embraced by a large number of people and philosophers alike. However, not only do some Philosophers find this thesis patently false but many people in societies all over the world dismiss this theory as gibberish. Which side if any is correct? Or at bare minimum, partially correct (Timmons, Mark 69)."
| |
|
Cultural Relativism and Feminism, 2008.
This paper discusses human rights versus the right to cultural self-determination and group rights.
2,428 words (approx. 9.7 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that one of the key tensions in contemporary feminist theory is the tension between cultural rights on the one hand, and gender equality rights, that is, women's human rights, on the other hand. It is argued that cultural relativism cannot be allowed to supersede universal rights, and therefore that radical cultural relativism must be rejected. The writer maintains that at most, a partial cultural relativism may be accepted - but what is really needed is an ongoing debate to try and arrive at universal human rights that can be agreed on globally. Whatever these rights turn out to be, the key point that is argued is that claims of cultural relativism function to preserve male privilege, just as in the West, rhetoric about traditional family values has tried to hold the fort against the introduction of basic human rights, such as votes for women and marriage for same-sex couples. The appeal to culture or tradition does not automatically confer legitimacy on unjust customs.
From the Paper
"One solution is to try to reform these cultures from within. The problem is that within a paradigm of collective rights, this is often neither practical nor possible. It is argued that Nagengast (1997) has a better solution, when she proposes that what is really needed is continuing debate, with a view to arriving at a consensus as to what would constitute universal rights - and that while we are doing this, radical cultural relativity must be rejected.
"Coomaraswamy notes that Asian scholars have also suggested a way of reframing this debate, by couching it in terms of Asian values as specifically non-Western values. In this reframing, the key point that is argued is that Western values privilege individual rights over communal values .."
| |
|
Academic Relativism, 2002.
How universities are responsible for helping provide students with moral guidelines.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the proposition that universities are not providing moral guidelines and finds that the proposition is reasonable and could be corrected by developing the critical reasoning abilities of students.
| |
|
On Cultural Relativism and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), 2000.
A critical analysis of the interaction of Western culture's social values and the practice of female circumcision.
1,745 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 3 sources, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the theory of cultural relativism as it relates to gender and sexuality from an anthropological cross-cultural perspective. It discusses how the "Western" perspective, as the dominant culture, defines the experiences of women who have experienced FGM in certain ways, namely in terms of Western medical discourse. This definition neglects to address the subjective experience of the women and how they define themselves and their own experience, thus giving an incomplete picture of the socio-cultural framework in which FGM takes place. Included also is a discussion of the problems of applying sociological theory to the intricacy of real-world human affairs.
From the paper:
"Cultural relativism states that what is morally good and bad is collectively defined by the people in a culture, and therefore there is no objective way to judge between cultures. Thus, an act in one culture that seems barbaric to an outsider ? such as female circumcision ? cannot be thus judged, because the outsider has his own value system that is not relevant to the culture. In this paper, I will examine the theoretical and ideological underpinnings of this perspective, the problems that arise when it is applied to actual cultural diversity, and alternative ways of looking at the space between cultures. I will specifically investigate the controversial topic of female genital mutilation, and explore the problems involved in approaching the practice from outside the culture it is practiced in."
|
|
|
