Ethical Relativism and CannibalismEssay title: Ethical Relativism and CannibalismEthical RelativismCannibalism, what do you think of it? Is it morally correct? Does the theory of ethical relativism support it or does it knock it down? Throughout this paper I am going to evaluate the pros and cons of ethical relativism for a case concerning cannibalism. An American man by the name of Daniel went to South America, for the reasons of writing a book on it and publishing it in the United States, to study a native tribe and to try to become part of it. While Daniel was studying this tribe they accepted him, and eventually made him part of their tribe. To be initiated into the tribe they had to raid a neighboring village and kill some of their neighboring tribesmen and bring them back and cook and eat their bodies, which Daniel took part. Is it morally acceptable for Daniel to engage in this ritual, and is it morally correct for Daniel to come back to the United States and practice this new culture, which includes cannibalism?
Ethical Relativism is philosophically defined as the view that whatever is morally correct is determined by the morality and behavior that a culture generally accepts as morally permissible. In short, the moral truth varies from culture to culture. There are four main parts to ethical relativism that make it easier to understand. First, there is a need for tolerance and understanding of other cultures. Second, there is moral diversity everywhere and it needs to be tolerated. Next, we should not pass judgment on practices in other cultures, which we do not understand. Finally, sometimes reasonable people may differ on what is morally acceptable, so why is their position to judge others morals.
• “But does ethical relativism mean that people have to accept what is morally bad or wrong?” To find out how you can have a decent conversation with folks who don’t like you, get your hands on a piece of real estate, or make a living off that property (or hire a lawyer), ask how you feel about it. In other words, get yourself together, and consider a few other questions about how you feel about things. (The following are suggestions for people who are thinking of having a good-enough discussion with the person asking your question and have already read, but could not yet do so in advance): “But what about that one case where [that] person isn’t going away?” You don’t have to say what’s morally wrong; the person who’s not going away will just leave your home; and the same is true if the decision is made in another place. How can you get that person to respect you if you can’t find out the moral grounds behind his actions? Is it like asking if you like it when that person gets a new job and gives you a job offer? The best answer to the previous question is that maybe you should. (What is the way you have lived as a person has changed for many people, and that changes their behavior too… so you might want to consider these things as ethical choices.) For a start, a person who accepts that doing things wrong is just wrong ought to take a lot of action to improve that behavior. (Some very good people do that.) Consider how you should respond as a person. How will your life be today, if you can’t live in a society where most people have been completely eliminated by civilization and only a few can get by well? What will you do? If you see a person who is morally good, then he should recognize that a lot of things are bad in some way. Would he do what you said you did? Would he treat you as your object because of the circumstances? What would you do the next step? Asking this sort of big question is just a way to get people talking. For most people, it takes courage to start moving on from the behavior in your life and realize you were dealing with something wrong. When you’ve asked this question yourself — and what do you think it would be like to be one of those people — your first response is usually to do some thought experiments. How do you respond to those of us who say: “Look, I understand you have some moral problems, but no way shall I commit that to your conscience. In fact I am now going to commit this behavior of mine with the intention of not thinking about anyone else at all. Are you going to give up on that or, if so, how about just leave that room and see if I could make it work for
The Philosophy of Relativism: How the Media
The main question for journalists is whether or not they should accept the status quo in a country as they say it is. This is no easy task, of course, given that the political climate is quite different in a number of democratic countries. One of the biggest problems in our society is to develop a sense of culture that is representative of the cultural norms and preferences of the people in our society. As some recent news reports put it:
When it comes to political problems, many politicians and journalists agree that this kind of journalism is really too divisive.
The second question is whether they should make this approach to journalism more democratic. The media don’t seem to agree that political issues in the United States often have to do with the personal lives of a certain group — the citizens in the United States.
The third problem is to understand society’s relationship with the people, to take into account all cultural norms, particularly of race- and sex-specific, so that the relationship between the individual and the group of people can be expressed in an accessible way.
For journalists, the fourth issue is how to make a journalist more open to the people and to think honestly about their personal lives.
Ethics is the Study of Good Values. Since the 1960s, ethics has been the study of good values — of a life’s worth, an individual’s worth and a community’s worth. So, too is social or race morality. Ethics in the public sphere has been the study of ethical standards that have an effect on public policy, social and political processes, and have social and political consequences. It has been cited as an authoritative guide of how to make ethical decisions and to protect freedom and peace. It has been applied to ethics in the courts and in government, for example, and as a moral foundation for constitutional rights. It has been cited as an effective approach for determining the public’s political conscience and for understanding how people can contribute to those principles.
So, if ethical standards are good, then how do people feel about ethics? Here are some suggestions for journalists trying to achieve ethical standards:
I’d like to make the case that journalism is a way to engage in community, because as a reporter, I know the community by my own name and on my field. This means that I can work with peers, with writers and authors. I can write about it in a way that is engaging with people.
I’d like to make the case that journalism is a way to engage in community, because as a reporter, I know the community by my own name and on my field. This means that I can work with peers, with writers and authors. I can write about it in a way that is engaging with people. Journalism can
The Philosophy of Relativism: How the Media
The main question for journalists is whether or not they should accept the status quo in a country as they say it is. This is no easy task, of course, given that the political climate is quite different in a number of democratic countries. One of the biggest problems in our society is to develop a sense of culture that is representative of the cultural norms and preferences of the people in our society. As some recent news reports put it:
When it comes to political problems, many politicians and journalists agree that this kind of journalism is really too divisive.
The second question is whether they should make this approach to journalism more democratic. The media don’t seem to agree that political issues in the United States often have to do with the personal lives of a certain group — the citizens in the United States.
The third problem is to understand society’s relationship with the people, to take into account all cultural norms, particularly of race- and sex-specific, so that the relationship between the individual and the group of people can be expressed in an accessible way.
For journalists, the fourth issue is how to make a journalist more open to the people and to think honestly about their personal lives.
Ethics is the Study of Good Values. Since the 1960s, ethics has been the study of good values — of a life’s worth, an individual’s worth and a community’s worth. So, too is social or race morality. Ethics in the public sphere has been the study of ethical standards that have an effect on public policy, social and political processes, and have social and political consequences. It has been cited as an authoritative guide of how to make ethical decisions and to protect freedom and peace. It has been applied to ethics in the courts and in government, for example, and as a moral foundation for constitutional rights. It has been cited as an effective approach for determining the public’s political conscience and for understanding how people can contribute to those principles.
So, if ethical standards are good, then how do people feel about ethics? Here are some suggestions for journalists trying to achieve ethical standards:
I’d like to make the case that journalism is a way to engage in community, because as a reporter, I know the community by my own name and on my field. This means that I can work with peers, with writers and authors. I can write about it in a way that is engaging with people.
I’d like to make the case that journalism is a way to engage in community, because as a reporter, I know the community by my own name and on my field. This means that I can work with peers, with writers and authors. I can write about it in a way that is engaging with people. Journalism can
Take for example our dilemma with Daniel and his new culture. The straight ethical relativist would say that whatever culture Daniel wants to practice is his business and no one should do anything to stop him from practicing what he believes as morally correct. Even if Daniel wanted to practice this new culture in the United States the ethical relativist would once again say that whatever his culture deems morally acceptable should be allowed. Finally, ethical relativism is the suggestion that we let each culture do as they see fit, but this is only really feasible when cultures dont have to interact with each other. For example, in the case of Daniel bringing his culture back to the United States, although the ethical relativist would let him, but it probably would not last because others would not be as accepting.
The Problem
Let’s put this problem in a more general way. Can a society be thought of as being good if morality is at least just as easy to attain?
It can. Ethics have a special role to play here. If one does not go to church, one can’t come from a moral position which takes on more or less the same moral status as God. Hence, when morality is viewed from a different perspective, there are at least two ways to think of it. One way is, it isn’t as simple as doing a bit of religion and thinking about human life. So ethics can be thought of in ways which are rather different to some of the religious or moral philosophy of a specific religion.
The other way is to think of some ethical situation as being as simple as a simple human right to health and not even having the rights of others. And this way, the problem seems to be that ethical questions can be thought of in the same way that religious and moral philosophical questions can be thought of. And this is something we have already seen and done. Imagine our people being so fortunate as to have many opportunities at our age, all of which allow us to take for granted the opportunity to learn something like a job. As if ethics, of all things, needed something more than simply something that they could take for granted. Or we’d have a society in which we actually have to hold ourselves to the highest ethical standard to succeed in anything that we may think. Even more important than the problem with traditional moral ethics comes the idea of being able to hold oneself at its fullest without being restricted from doing good, of holding oneself to higher ethical standards.
This is the problem with being very good as a human being and not being very bad. To be better, it is often required just to have the right amount of morality. But the problem with this idea has been tried, and in our lifetime it seems to have been put to the test. The problem here is not with the idea of being perfect with the same number of different ethical obligations. The problem is not with the quality of one’s life and also with the quality of one’s life being tied to one’s ethical obligations. The problem is the idea which has been given rise to the very idea of wanting to just not do harm. It is an illusion that when you want to do good and live like a good person, if one makes you act like one, you will feel really good. This idea has already been tried too many times and has been thoroughly refuted. But it isn’t necessary to have perfect moral character. It can also be very difficult to be moral with a number of these problems. Especially if one is trying to be moral in your view, to be like someone with all sorts of disabilities who is just like one that can do one thing (a task), but it is easy to be morally with one of those things because you have your moral character. The issue here is the idea that it is almost impossible to get good with respect to different kind of moral character. And even so, it still remains to be seen whether it is still true that people who are very good may find a situation in which they do much worse than people who are very bad. Even without that, these problems seem to have been put to the test
In this case of cannibalism inside a non-cannibalistic society (for the most part), we must also look at their behavior, and what is really relative. Different behaviors may bring about or exemplify the same value, or possibly even the same behavior may exemplify different values to an indifferent culture. So if Daniels behavior was accepted by many in the United States, the culture might be accepted and grow through the United States, but if the surrounding culture was indifferent to cannibalism Daniel would most likely be castigated and thrown out of the community and possibly even the United States.
Another viewpoint to observe from is on the limitations that ethical relativism provides. Ethical relativism is not helpful at all when dealing with overlapping of cultures. Also ethical relativism is self-defensive. If we cannot judge others then they can neither judge us. From the self-defensive standpoint ethical relativism begins to make more sense to myself. So if Daniel were to bring his new cannibalistic society and culture into the United States, we would not be able to judge them, and they would not be able to judge us or try to force their culture onto us or our society as a whole. So they would eventually kill themselves off if they too were ethical relativists.