Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter Objectives
saying that one can never truly separate morality from culiture
life is simply unrealistic and even absurd. For some, morality is but
a result of cultural factors.For them Ethics or morality is simply
to cultural factors?
1998: 63).
They believe in moral right and wrong. It is just that they contend
practices are right and wrong. “It only says that no matter how we
may be both right and wrong at the same time - say, right in one
moral views about the same action may be both right at the same
Relativism is the actual existence of moral diversity among cultures. Throughout history many societies
have held beliefs and
practices about morality that are strikingly different from our own.-
(Warburton 1995:56-60).
across societies" may lead us to deny that there really is only one
correct moral code that applies to and binds all societies (Barcalow
1998:48).
of people,especially among the youth of today. Part of it’s [powerful drawing power] is due to the fact
that such view has
world of ours which have seen the fall of many “absolutes” in the
see and realize that the other side of the fence is not necessarily
wrong. They have to stop this “we're right and they're wrong"
the result of our having been conditioned to behave in a certain way. We may feel that certain actions
are good and others are bad
or evil, but that is merely because we all had been trained and
neither true nor false, right nor wrong, for there is no such thing as
less.
somehow think that people should conform with and embrace the
in fact, a kind of a democratic basis where “diverse ideas and principles are pooled in,thus insuring that
the norms/rules that a
/should be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and
others false. But in fact we cannot prove which moral opinions are
clothes they wear,the kind of food they eat and the language they
though that cultural relativism is an indisputable fact, "it does not by itself establish the truth of ethical
relativism”(Pojman
1999:38).
The point or rather the whole question here is this: Does the
the fact that cultures vary in beliefs and practices tantamount to say
(Gensler 1998:16).
philosopher:
they believe that people should not judge other people from other
enlightened minds, the kind that can render respect and tolerance
Well,it is not difficult to see that if one believes that his or her
culture is not morally better than the other,he or she could likely
that this would be necessarily the case? Are we really that certain
experimentation(in the context of a scientific rigor) of those who claimed to embrace Ethical Relativism
and find out whether these
people are in fact more tolerant than those who do not accept the
consistently.
people who are intolerant, but they also cannot criticize anyone
it is likely that the law of the jungle where “might is always right"
evil.
favor of Ethical Relativism. However,as Rachels systematically points out in the article
in Curd 1992:103)
erroneous.
perhaps equally powerful if not more powerful and significant factors that have contributed,in one way
or the other, to a greater
sense of morality.
One of the most important and crucial of all these other factors
(in fact for the Existentialist philosophers this is the most
his/her own free volition. What one is-is nothing but a result of
the decisions that he/she constantly makes. The human person then
and mainly (again, this one is also very much debatable) the
fallacy of oversimplification.
reasons why.
simply dependent of what the majority wants or decides. What is good and bad is reducible to a kind of
social contract or a matter of
group consensus.
not.It is them that makes or decides what is good and bad. Ergo, it
would only mean the moral code or the moral beliefs and stand of
society believes that slavery is right, that simply means that the
it is morally acceptable.
Would save us from the risk of falling into the pit of erroneous
moral judgment. But most of us know (are we guilty here of the fallacy of the
majority?) that the majority is not always right. We know for a fact
these and the many other moral reformists are simply wrong.
The issue here is “how can one define the boundary or scope
not only overlap but at times also conflict with one another. It
construe it to be in day-to-day,“normal”conversation,then we
The fact that human beings disagree with each other on certain
unlike the disputes between scientists about the age of the universe
1992:171-172).
One will only think of perennial moral issues which have not.
does not mean that it has no answer whatsoever.“Even if there were no solid way to know moral truths,
it would not follow that
Mackinnon 1998:15).
and limited mortals. But the very statement that they are hidden
account for the strong feeling that there are genuine disputes about
Conclusion
concomitant weaknesses.
for worse.”
the negative aspect of the Filipino traits and values as pointed out by Prof. Emeritus Emerita Quito (the
first Filipina who obtained a
culture?” (as one foreign writer once sadly and tragically described