Ethics †Morality Essay

Ethical relativism is a view on devotion stating that at that place atomic number 18 no universally accepted moral principles. Morality varies from one subtlety to another and no society has the skillful to impose their view of pietism on other societies. Ethical relativism can be summed up to conceive that morals are derived from what is culturally acceptable in any given(p) society. ER is made up of two theses. The first is the diversity thesis, which solely says that moral practices are diverse across cultures. Ruth Benedict defends this system by using homosexuality as an example.She explains how homosexuality was accepted and still encouraged in many cultures throughout history, like ancient Greece, barely denounced in others. More evidence for the diversity thesis can be found in burying practices. Ancient Greeks honored their dead by burning the bodies. Similarly, Callatians showed respect to their dead by eating the bodies. However, both cultures were exceedingly offended when asked how much money would be required to institute the burial practices of the other. These examples clearly illustrate the vast differences in morality from culture to culture.ERs second thesis is called the dependency thesis. It states that in that location is no objective lens standard by which to judge morality. Westermark defends this theory by saying that moral philosophy is a learned set of behaviors instilled in every human at a young age by his or her surroundings. As a young person, we pick up on right and wrong by learning from those around us what is culturally acceptable. The ultimate source of morality, accord to Westermark, is sympathy. This gut feeling of right and wrong is the only scale of morality each person has.Pojman has found many discrepancies in the theory of honest relativism. Since ER says that no cultures view of morality can be criticized, we ought to be tolerant of all cultures. The problem is that tolerance would then be a universa l moral principle, which ER says doesnt exist. In fact it would be just as acceptable for a culture to be illiberal since morality is relative. Thus ER is logically inconsistent. This inconsistency makes ER irrelevant to solving conflicts between cultures, since each can be viewed as macrocosm morally right in any action by their bear definition.Pojman also explains how any social reformers, like Martin Luther King Jr. , would inherently be wrong by going against the societal majority (i. e. those that get word morals). ER also implies that mass opinion is infallible, thus making a brutal dictator such as Hitler morally justified. The challenge of the isthmus is a hypothetical question posed to Socrates by Glaucon in the fifth century BC. Glaucon introduces a mythical ring that turns its wearer invisible. Glaucon says that every person, even the plainly most moral, would use the ring to his or her advantage even at the detriment of others.His inclination is based on the fact that the only solid ground people dont live fully unjust lives directly is fear of repercussions. Under the stipulation that one can never be caught, the fear vanishes one becomes immoral. Socrates responds by asking if damage really does pay. His transmit is that by ones take in definition of success, one whitethorn or may not use the ring. For example if success is delimitate by a man as being scrupulous, he wouldnt use the ring because ultimately it doesnt lead to happiness for him. In contrast, the man who defines success by wealth would use the ring.Socrates says that to do injustice is to scar ones soul, which is equivalent to the modern word character. Both sides of the ring argument have merit. For the majority of the population I believe Glaucon is right, they would use the ring. However, close to define happiness differently, and for them the ring is of no use. Friedmans argument on corporate social responsibility is that it doesnt exist. According to Friedman, a slews only goal is to increase profits infinitely date staying within the realm of the law.He states that a corporate executive is barely an employee of the shareholders and his or her job is solely to increase return to the shareholders. If an executive were to be socially responsible and donate money to a charity, its an self-appointed distribution of shareholder funds. Thus being socially responsible is simultaneously being morally irresponsible. The burden of social responsibility should be pose on individual consumers. If they dont like the policies and practices of a certain(p) company they have the option to not buy the product or not invest in the company.The divine command theory makes a single differentiation between right and wrong. Simply, according to DCT, morally right means commanded by god and morally wrong means forbid by graven image. This theory is highly criticized and many philosophers would say it has been refuted for thousands of years. The main rebuke comes from Socrates and Euthyphro. The question is whether what is right is right because God says so (DCT) or does God say its right because he sees that its right (theory of natural law). excerption one is quickly dismissed by Euthyphro because it implies quite a collation of arbitrariness.For instance, in the very beginning all actions were morally equal until God starting commanding and prohibiting certain ones. If God loving something makes it right, what reason is there for God wanting us to do right? If God commanded fornication, adultery would be morally right and obligatory. Option two means that there is a standard of morals independent from Gods own will. This contradicts the divine command theorys basic component that commanded by God is right and prohibited by God is wrong. -Reason, Morality, and Public constitution Classic and Contemporary Readings in Philosophy by G. M. Brown, Ph. D.