Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Relativism
n "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues things simply wrong. Do Goodman ? Using specific examples, explore challenges Goodman presents relativism. Determine universal moral requirements, defend answer.
Moral minima: Goodman's arguments against relativism
Given the increasing globalization of modern society, combined with the influence of postmodernism, the philosophy of moral relativism has become increasingly popular and accepted within the academy. However, according to Lenn E. Goodman's essay "Some moral minima," some things are 'just wrong.' Goodman writes: "All living beings make claims to life" (Goodman 2010: 88). In other words, to protect the sanctity of human life, sometimes it is necessary to lay down certain absolute ground rules of morality that, regardless of cultural differences, must be obeyed. These include prohibiting: terrorism; hostage taking and child warriors; slavery, polygamy, and incest; and rape and female genital cutting (Goodman 2010: 88).
However, while these ideas may seem like 'no brainers' in terms of the moral revulsion which they inspire, on closer examination Goodman's rationalizations for focusing on these transgressions is somewhat problematic. For example, Goodman asserts: "Why is genocide uglier than murder? The answer lies in the intent, not just the scale of the crime" (Goodman 2010: 88). The controversial implication of this statement is that a 'hate crime' is inherently worse than an equally violent crime not rooted in hate (for example, murdering someone who is an African-American for his money is inherently, morally worse than murdering someone for...
It suggests that genocides, such as committed by Hitler against the Jewish people, are inherently morally worse than the equally bloody and violent carnage caused by the terror of Stalin. Of course, it certainly is possible and valid to argue these points, but to suggest that these points are entirely beyond debate is questionable. Goodman has a clearly deontological orientation as a moralist: he asserts that the intentions of the action, not the results of the action, are all that matters.
Goodman also states that terrorism is morally indefensible (Goodman 2010: 89). Once again, this seems like a reasonable assertion to make, particularly in the wake of the horrors our nation suffered on September 11, 2001. However, it is also important to remember that many of the tactics used during the American Revolutionary War on the patriot side were questionable in terms of the 'rules' of warfare at the time. Also, to create a viable compromise to rule Northern Ireland, as well as to negotiate a peace treaty in the Middle East (or simply to arrange for an exchange of hostages or prisoners), some 'dealing' with morally repugnant terrorists could be said to have been or will be necessary. Once again, this is in no way a defense of terrorist actions under any circumstances, but rather a challenge to the notion that the view one must take of terrorism is uncomplicated and black-and-white in a cross-cultural fashion and applicable to all circumstances.
It is important to remember that even in today's day and age; slavery is still common in many places around the globe. Goodman lists slavery as yet…
References
Goodman, Lenn. (2010). Some moral minima. The Good Society, 19 (10): 87-94.
Moral Realism vs. Moral Relativism Philosophers have argued the merits or existence of moral realism and moral relativism for some time. Generally, the argument is designed as an either or proposition, where only one argument can be true. This is not necessarily true when one takes the time to explore what is meant by moral realism vs. moral relativism (Streitfeld). Essentially, moral realism is an objective view while moral realism is
Then morality is relative, not absolute (Kreeft) Weaknesses One weakness of moral relativism consists of the consequences of not having moral constraints (Kreeft 2003). Correct or good morality, if valid, should always have good consequences. Incorrect or bad morality should always have bad consequences. The fact is that all wrong or immoral acts and attitudes bring on "good" or pleasant feelings. Moral relativism has never produced people worthy of praise. It
Rule-breakers received swift punishment. Deviation from the norm was not tolerated by law or by social convention. Just because a moral standard helps create a stable society does not mean that moral standard is just, good, or right. Finally, the use of coercion itself denotes an unnatural moral standard. It takes relatively little coercion to ensure that most people don't murder or steal. Most children internalize the types of
Similarly, when a member of society becomes too feeble to contribute, leaving them in the snow is deemed the proper solution. Both practices are deemed proper, as they increase the survival chances of the tribe as a whole. Thus, while another society may cringe at the idea of infanticide and leaving the elderly to die, Eskimo societies see the survival of the tribe as the paramount concern. There are many
Pollack. There has to be a time when people are willing to stand for what is right and in their beliefs. Unfortunately, time has proven that great losses come from standing behind a belief system or truth that is not held by all individuals involved. Conclusively, one would feel that punishment and lose is the payment for stepping out of the box, and pointing out errors, indiscretions etc. The
Morality in America Morals are defined as a set of principles of right action and behavior for the individual. The traditional morals of any given society are the set of moral principles by which the majority of its members have lived over a long time, a consensus which that society has reached on what is considered correct and decent behavior. It is the way one's society expectsone to behave, even if