Assessment Activity ON Ethical Relativism AND Objectivism 3ad7bb74cb1ab10603 e26768 fd6cd7c5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Assessment Activity ON Ethical Relativism AND Objectivism 3ad7bb74cb1ab10603 e26768 fd6cd7c5 PDF

Description

ON ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND OBJECTIVISM ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY ( ADDITIONAL NOTES ARE AT THE BOTTOM)

Name: JAYRIC INDOC E. Course/Year: BSCRIM 2-B Date: ________ Time: ______ Essay. Answer the questions as briefly as possible.

1. What’s the difference between conventionalism and subjectivism? Conventionalism is a moral conduct, according to which the criteria for right and wrong (or good and bad) conduct are based on general agreement or social convention. While subjectivism such propositions are true. The truth or falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the (actual or hypothetical) attitudes of people.

2. What’s the difference between relativism and objectivism? Ethical Relativism is the view that moral (or normative) statements are not objectively true, but “true” relative to a particular individual or society that happens to hold the belief. Moral Objectivism holds that there are objective, universal moral principles that are valid for all people. Louis Pojman proposes one such moral principle that he believes is binding upon all human beings: “It is morallywrong to torture people just for the fun of it.”

3. How do objectivists answer the question regarding the origin of ethical principles? the fixed view, which says that principles are fixed and do not change; the universal view, which includes the fixed view and adds that principles apply to all people everywhere; and the absolutist view, which includes the universal view and adds that certain principles are non-overrideable and true for all situations. 4. What will be the result/results if we follow the conventionalist or objectivist view? We could have a better understanding of the beliefs of others and embraced it with a moral acceptance within our society. 5. Explain relativism with regards to the philosophy of the Sophists "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." Moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards are culturally defined, which is generally true. For example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn't mean that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it.

On Ethical Relativism and Objectivism

1. What is ethical relativism? Relativism is the view that states that moral principles are valid, but they vary by culture or by individuals. By this definition of ethical relativism, two ethical theories are to be considered: Conventionalism and Subjectivism. a.

What is Conventionalism? Conventionalism holds that moral principles are valid but they vary by culture. Conventionalists like Ruth Benedict argue that since different cultures hold different principles, how can one judge another? Each of these different moralities is equally valid. She uses the argument from ‘normality’: each culture defines what behavior is normal, to fit the behavior of the majority. The majority of that population then defines normality and also lives by it, and only a small minority is aberrant or abnormal. Benedict calls morality “a convenient term for socially approved habits” and the normal “a variant of the concept of the good.” In other words, whatever behavior is socially acceptable and normal is also good. b. What is Subjectivism? Subjectivism is the extreme end of relativism. This view holds that morality is determined at the individual level, not a social or universal level. Thus, the only moral principles that are valid are the ones you believe in—in short, all principles are equally valid. 2. What are the implications of being a conventionalist or a subjectivist? Following the conventionalist or the subjectivist point of view would definitely result in a moral vacuum. How can one society or individual judge the behavior of another if all socially accepted behaviors or personal moral principles are valid? If conventionalism holds true, slavery was a morally right act at the time that it was popular, and only when conventions changed did it become wrong. The terrorists of September 11 may be considered heartless criminals by our standards, but in their own they are saints in paradise. If conventionalism holds true, then the actions of those men were absolutely correct because their society agreed with them. If subjectivism holds true, then any court system or law is useless, since the only standard by which a man can be judged is his own, and whether or not he upheld his own principles. Essentially, all behavior is correct to the subjectivist. Thus, the subjectivist cannot even deplore murder or terrorism because these acts are as valid and acceptable as love and altruism, so long as they are a part of the individual’s moral principles. Simply put, all is good so long as you believe in it.

http://www.angelfire.com/weird/enanareina/essays/relobj.html 3. What is ethical objectivism? Objectivism is the view that holds that certain moral principles are valid for all individuals and cultures. There are different levels of objectivism: the fixed view, which says that principles are fixed and do not change; the universal view , which includes the fixed view and adds that principles apply to all people everywhere; and the absolutist view, which includes the universal view and adds that certain principles are non-overrideable and true for all situations. People who hold this theory answer the question “where do these principles come from?” in several different ways: from the essence or commonality of human nature, from natural reality, from God or the divine or from the intrinsic good that comes from their application. (http://www.angelfire.com/weird/enanareina/essays/relobj.html)...