"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:bu4lj7$dnhan$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...

Scott wrote:

1) They all assert that one thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, knowledge,
taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint
(e.g. the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a

scheme).
2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all
others.

http://www.moral-relativism.com/
Moral Relativism - What's It All About?
Moral Relativism is the theory that morality, or standards of right and
wrong, are culturally based and therefore become a matter of individual
choice. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for
me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

Moral Relativism - Is It Really Neutral?
Moral Relativism has gradually become the prevailing moral philosophy of
western society, a culture once governed largely by the Judeo-Christian
concept of morality. While those early standards continue to form the

for civil law, people by and large are embracing the notion that right and
wrong are not absolute values, but are to be decided by the individual and
can change from one situation or circumstance to the next. Essentially,
moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately

meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this
way, moral relativism claims to be morally neutral.

In describing her view on morality, the President of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America once stated, ".teaching morality doesn't mean

my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for
believing as I do - and then trusting others to think and judge for
themselves."

She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly
intended to influence the thinking of others. an intention that is not, in
fact, neutral.

Evidence that moral relativism is seen as more "fair" or "neutral" than a
"hardline" stance on morality is seen in a 2002 column from Fox News

Bill O'Reilly, who asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article,
O'Reilly cites recent Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught

American universities. Studies indicate 75% of American college professors
currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong.

Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to

cultural diversity."

The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that
"they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying
questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left
unanswered."
Moral Relativism - Where Do You Stand?
Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself which position

hold where morality is concerned, you must first determine what you

about the origin of life. Do you believe life evolved or do you believe

was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution
teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore,
anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. If you

we are created, however, moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a
Creator. All things created are subject to a set of laws, whether natural

divine. Moral relativism says anything goes .but does it? Is it better to
torture a child, or to hug that child?

C.S. Lewis points to the nature of most quarrels as a clue to what we

believe. Inherent in those quarrels is a concept of fairness, as in "how
would you like it if someone did that to you?" When we make that

we are appealing "to some kind of standard of behavior [we] expect" the
other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates?

Ethical Relativism
But what if there are no common moral values? What if our moral beliefs

neither right nor wrong, but are simply "opinions" with no more objective
validity than such matters of individual preference as whether someone

butter or sour cream on their potato? The position that makes this claim

commonly known as "ethical relativism."

If the ethical relativists are
right, then there are no common standards of moral judgment, and the
ethicist, who would try to define such standards, is working in vain.
There are a couple of different versions of ethical relativism. One
version, individual relativism, claims that moral standards are relative

individual moral beliefs--that in effect what one believes is right is

with respect to one's own actions--and thus no sound moral argument
condemning the actions of a moral agent can be offered if the conclusion

the argument is inconsistent with the moral beliefs of the agent. A

way in which this position is expressed is the following: "everyone has
different moral views, and will make different moral judgments under the
same circumstances, so there's no point in trying to find a common moral
standard because there is none." Another version of ethical relativism is
so-called cultural relativism. According to this view, moral standards

relative to cultural moral beliefs.

Thus although one can justifiably
condemn the actions of a person that are inconsistent with the moral

of that person's culture, no condemnation of the actions of a person of a
certain culture can be justified if those actions are consistent with the
moral beliefs of that person's culture. Typically this position has been
offered to support the claim that we should respect the beliefs and
practices of other cultures in order to avoid allowing our own cultural
beliefs to be the basis of unfair assessments of these cultures.

Thus the position might be expressed in this manner: "various cultures

world have different moral standards, and it is simply a prejudice of our
own cultural perspective to find fault with these views."

Although there are a number of good arguments that can be offered
against ethical relativisms of either sort, one of the most

ways of suggesting the implausibility of ethical relativism is to note the
implications of the view. It is particularly difficult to be a consistent
relativist when one is harmed or injured by others.

If you find these implications objectionable then you cannot accept

relativism.

Another common reason that people adopt ethical relativism is the
erroneous view that if one rejects relativism, then the only alternative

to accept a position that they find unacceptable, commonly known as moral
absolutism:

the view that there are a certain set of moral rules that apply
in all relevant cases without exception. According to moral absolutism,

example, lying to others is always wrong, even in cases where, for

not lying would result in great harm to others.

But rejecting ethical relativism does not require the acceptance of moral

acceptance of a broader position commonly called moral objectivism or

realism. This view simply makes the claim that normative judgments can be
justified on objective (nonrelativistic) grounds, but a moral objectivist

not necessarily committed to the claim that moral standards are absolute.
Common moral standards can be understood to apply in different ways
depending on the circumstances of particular moral situations. So a lie
might be justified under certain circumstances.

Sometimes people embrace relativism as a reaction against traditional
moral beliefs that they regard as oppressive and odious. It certainly is
the case that people in the past, as many people of the present, have held
certain moral beliefs that from a more enlightened point of view are

objectionable, such as the moral permissibility of slavery, the moral
impermissibility of treating women as equals, and the like.

But the rejection of ethical relativism does not imply that traditional

beliefs must be accepted.

.... Moral skepticism also loses sight
of the fact that historically many moral issues that were hotly debated in
the past have been settled in ways that no reasonable person would object

today: that slavery is immoral, that women should have the same legal

as men, that racism is immoral, that religious freedom should be protected
by law, etc.

Moral argument played a crucial role in the resolution of
these issues. But from the point of view of moral relativism, we would

to conclude that the adoption of these beliefs in fact effected no advance
in moral understanding--that if these beliefs had been rejected, our

would be none the worse for it.

The common reasons, then, offered for adopting ethical relativism are,
on close examination, quite unconvincing, and in practice it is quite
difficult for any reasonable person to adopt the view consistently. At

rate, in this course we will accept moral objectivism as the basis of our
discussions: simply put, that moral positions can be justified on the

of rationally supportable and objective criteria.