Personal Relativism Research Paper

Loretta Kopelman’s dissertation, Female Genital Circumcision and Conventionalists Ethical Relativism, takes a new approach in a global plight. Kopelman begins her thesis by elaborating on a particular tribe in southern Kenya. She describes how young girls are being mutilated for marriageability. Their fathers, eager for large dowries, perform the ritual on girls as young as nine. While some victims are able to escape and seek sanctuary, this obviously isn’t always possible and thus these girls must live with an inflicted deformity their whole life that doesn’t only cause serious health complications but sometimes even death.

After reading both point of views, written by Ruth Benedict, “Are Ethics Relative?” I think I would side with the relativism approach. The relativism approach focuses on a personal approach towards the understanding of how one views the moral rules. I think that not all moral rules apply to all people in the world. Depending on the individual the culture will have a different effect approach based on the person.

This paper is the development of my personal theory on Christian Counseling. I use many scriptural references to support my beliefs and stress the importance of gaining wisdom and knowledge from the bible. It incorporates all of the presentations, readings, and critiques I did at Liberty University’s Theology and Spirituality in counseling course. I talk about how I integrate Psychology, Theology, and Spirituality into my Christian counseling and believe that they all have a lot to offer the Christian counselor. The role of integration and multitasking is necessary to be an effective Christian counselor under the guidelines of the American Association of Christian

Genesis 1:2-25 describes in detail the creation of the world starting with God creating day and night, heaven,

Dr. Sandra D. Wilson (2001) asks, “Have you ever felt as if you were the only caterpillar in a butterfly world? Do you often feel as if you have to do twice as much to be half as good as other” (p. 16)? If you answered, yes, then that is what Wilson (2001) calls binding shame. “Shame is the soul-deep belief that something is horribly wrong with me that is not wrong with anyone else in the entire world. If I am bound by shame, I feel hopelessly, distinguishingly different and worthless (p. 16).

All throughout history African Americans have been discriminated against and always been at a disadvantage, whether it be in the courtroom, with police officers, or just trying to be a normal American citizen. Recently many minority players are taking a stand against the prejudice injustices that they face on an everyday basis. In response to the injustices they face, using their national fame, the athletes are raising awareness by taking a knee during the National Anthem, in an attempt to peacefully protest. This bold form of protest has only occurred a handful amount of times, because of not only the national criticism that is to follow but the repercussions as well. Many American citizens, veterans and government officials are taking

Before diving into the arguments for and against moral relativism, it is important to define some key terms including morality, cultural diversity, and tolerance. David Fisher, a Teaching Fellow at King’s College, London defines morality in his book, Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-first Century?. “Morality is thus neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Cultural diversity is simply the existence of various cultures in society. Tolerance is just the ability to accept something that you would not normally agree with.

When I am confronted with a moral dilemma I take into consideration morality. It is related beliefs about right or wrong. My thought process is moral judgment, it is a statement affirming that an action is right or wrong, and what makes a person or motive good. I believe that the best theory aligns with my own fundamental beliefs about morality is cultural relativism. To illustrate, there are parties what are popular in some countries while in other countries there are not. For example, I am from Cuba where the thanksgiving is not a tradition, when I came to live here in the U.S.; I know about it. In this case I cannot say celebrate thanksgiving is a mistaken or not; it is simply a new tradition. I believe that once I know about right things,

I believe moral objectivism is better than ethical relativism because some moral norms can be objective. Not all moral norms are subject for debate but some clearly can be. I can make the argument that human life is valuable, whereas euthanasia can be objective depending on your religious or cultural belief. The permissibility rules you accept are for you neither justified nor unjustified: they justify. As long as you have a set of permissibility rules that do not require impossible actions, or posit non-existing entities, there are no epistemic or practical reasons for rejecting or it.

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.

Ethical relativism and ethical absolutism are two differing theories on how we ought to or ought not to decide on right from wrong. We question and evaluate morality in the terms of right and wrong constantly throughout life. The moral values that we decide to indoctrinate into our everyday lives are strongly motivated by cultural constraints in the eyes of some, to include anthropologist Dr. Ruth Benedict. Ethical relativism is defined as moral values being strongly dependent on time, place, and standards of a given culture. A contrasting theory to relativism is absolutism. The concept of a single, unwavering moral code used by all humans universally is absolutism. Dr. Christina Hoff-Sommers is an American philosopher who supports the idea of basic moral values and virtues based on absolutism. As humans we all have a duty to treat each other with a baseline of morality, while striving to improve character within our cultural environments.

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion, traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the “doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs”(Pojman, 24).

Moral Relativism is tempting as an easy choice. If someone says he or she is a moral relativist about precise issues they perhaps have an underline principle that is morally true everywhere and is not relative. However, trying to find those underline principles is really hard.