We view these customs as inferior to ours. Why does Cahn think that belief in God does not necessarily make our moral obligations clear? When given a closer look at cultural relativism we come to the conclusion that it is not as plausible as it first appears and that certain moral values are needed…. At first glance, moral relativism appears to be an appealing, well though out philosophical view. However, it does tell us that certain moral claims will be true across cultures. Let's take your Newton's Laws example for example. I would also claim that due to the fact that the Cultural Differences Argument would allow such atrocities such as honor killings to go on without being questioned, that the argument itself is morally reprehensible and therefore a non-starter. A crucial flaw in the Cultural Differences Argument is that the comparison of moralities is only between two different peoples, I propose that we change that.
First, I will define in this paper what Moral Relativism is and show how it relates to cultural differences. But, this does not take away from the idea that facts never change. In my statement that you quoted, I was merely trying to say that someone cannot say that action X is wrong in all situations and then say that it is permissible for a culture to do action X due to cultural. Sometimes, a difference in norms can appear to indicate a difference in values, but actually reflects only a difference in factual beliefs. Cultures may differ in what they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules, but this disagreement exists against a background of agreement on the larger issues. In response to this, the standard reply of the psychological egoist is to impute to the person some other, essentially selfish, motivation.
Different cultures have different moral codes. This flies in the face of Cultural Relativism. There are a couple of serious problems with this, however. The difference lies in belief systems, not in values. Second, Cultural Relativism has the very surprising result that those who have been hailed as great moral reformers and revolutionaries: Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. Indeed it seems that virtue and vice are equally non-miraculous.
What problems does Regan think arise from basing our moral judgments on the word of God? There are facts and non-facts. It would have been a better article if it had a broader spectrum or advised for a less specific segment of the population. Some differences really are just preference 3. It is only because there is some underlying root to morality, whatever it may ultimately be, that we can understand progress. Evaluate Though the premise in this argument is true, this argument is invalid. In fact, it does worse than that.
The real problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Of course, a person may know more than one culture or may be competent in a combination of cultures. So, it is not our naming something a fact that makes it a fact. Thus, in order to make correct moral choices, we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices. Eskimo customs are very different from our own. How useful is the thesis of psychological behavior in the task of explaining behavior? More generally, we have: The Cultural Differences Argument 1.
So the key in this case is to learn to balance your need to remain humble with cultural differences in the workplace that demand that you talk about your achievements if you want to move forward in your career. P2: Infanticide is always morally acceptable. The rationale for a premise is the reason why someone would think the premise is true. I believe that morality is relative to culture. Fauziya Kassindja came to the U. Not very convincing, is it? If we want to explain what makes a moral standard justified, we still need a theory about this.
I would say science is fundamentally different in that it relies on empirical evidence. The moral code of Culture A is different from the moral code of Culture B ii. Take note, too, that killing the baby is not the first option considered. The fact that different cultures disagree about right and wrong doesn't mean there is no right or wrong Argument by analogy - People used to believe the earth was flat, people today think its round. We would just be wrong about what we thought was morally true.
And it seems that values are a type of fact that relates to the human brain and human experience. When Americans say that infanticide is always wrong, is this simply because they are not imagining being in a situation where the infant cannot be cared for? In this way the person is able to avoid any misunderstandings or the possibility to unintentionally. The point is that this interpretation of the divine-command theory makes it logically impossible to morally judge God at all. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties such as beliefs, desires and emotions inhere in some physical substances namely brains. How important does Kant think outcomes or the consequences of our actions are to whether the act has moral worth? I chose this one because they both have some resemblance but they also have their dissimilarities. I don't think I agree with your statement but I'm also not clear on your definitions.
X could be homosexuality, or abortion, or equal rights for women and men, or whatever. It is clear that the answer to the question of ethics is, Cultural Relativism. Notice that the premise concerns what people believe but the conclusion assumes what really is the case. According to Descartes, minds and bodies are distinct kinds of substance. This phenomenon is practiced in China and India.