Universal MoralityEssay Preview: Universal MoralityReport this essayUniversal MoralityIs there such a thing as general ethical standards of morality? We live in a world filled with diversity of culture, where each one has different ideals and ways to view right and wrong. One groups most cherished beliefs are likely to differ significantly from another cultures value system. It can be challenging to find common ground among us when people are so often unwilling to compromise when it comes to their moral standards or cultural beliefs. A communitys culture is what provides meaning to their individual experiences and how they are used to making judgments about what is important in their lives. As our world has developed it has become increasingly important to recognize our differences; people travel, live, and have business interactions all over the globe, which is constantly bringing our differing cultures into close proximity. Philosophy now recognizes four major approaches to moral difference; moral nihilism, skepticism, and subjectivism, ethical relativism, soft universalism, and hard universalism. These approaches differ greatly in their thoughts of cultural morals and what are appropriate approaches in dealing with differences on this subject. In my mind they leave me with one major question; is there a general sense of morality that can cross inter-cultural belief systems and create a moral ideal for humanity as a whole? I believe that we all, as human beings, have an underlying sense of compassion and basic relatability that shapes a general and universal understanding of morality.
The first of philosophys ethical standpoints is regarding Moral Nihilism, Skepticism, and Subjectivism; all of which have no capacity to solve conflict and create a general attitude of indifference. Individuals who believe in moral nihilism regard morality as having no right or wrong, with no one persons standpoint holding any weight. In essence if one truly abides by this theory, no one act is considered immoral. I can imagine how this could be true for any human being, especially when an immoral act is committed against these particular people. Would they really be able to stand by and watch while a family member is harmed, or while all there hard earned possessions are being taken from them? I find it hard to believe that would be the case; this theory disregards any type of responsibility or care for one another at the most basic level. Moral skepticism states that we cannot know if there are any real moral truths, and subjectivism views morality strictly on an individual basis which cannot be compared to any other view. With all of these theories there is such a general lack of humanity that it almost feels as if the theories were developed by individuals who simply didnt care to put any effort into the development of a legitimate moral theory.
When I think about moral nihilism I have to keep myself from becoming either offended or angry. I have personally suffered abuse as a child, and to think that anyone could feel indifferent about this type of suffering is insulting. It truly makes me wonder what type of person could feel that something so traumatic and horrible being done to a young child could be considered neither right or wrong. It makes me curious as to how they would feel if they were the child who had suffered; would their opinions on this theory be the same? All I can say is; I should hope not.
The theory of ethical relativism has recently gotten more attention as it pertains to an attitude of tolerance and holds the general belief that each culture has its individual right to practice cultural traditions that encompass their own moral code. An ethical relativist would believe there is no room for relation or understanding, just an acceptance and consideration for any cultures freedom to do as they wish. This theory allows for no common ground or shared understanding; it is simply a no interference approach to other cultures morals and practices. This theory takes on a majority rule approach to these moral standards; it is believed that what is good for the majority of a particular community is what is acceptable for the whole, and no outsider has the right to interfere. Essentially, the idea of right and wrong results from cultural beliefs; nothing is inherently right or wrong except within the framework of a particular culture.
The Concept of “Acceptance” and the Emissaries
The concept of acceptance applies to societies that believe it is important to respect, or at least respect, their cultural traditions. There are various ways a cultural view might be called “acceptance,” one of the most commonly cited is the principle of “personal responsibility” or “emotion.” It is a belief that one person’s culture values others and what other people’s cultural traditions hold. There are different ways to term this principle, depending on it being the case. This principle goes from personhood to personal responsibility, however, so any notion of a “right” for one culture over another is debatable. Also, some countries have different definitions of what is acceptable and what is not. An even deeper way of thinking about the concept of “emotion” extends to ideas about the difference between “sisters” and “children” as distinct groups. These children, a “sister” would probably prefer a brother to be on a team playing hockey, but is that too personal? Or does the child of a parent also love and respect their brothers and others? Or does that one sister value their culture and is a sister or a brother?
The concept of acceptance is used to apply to cultures worldwide because there are thousands of cultures across the globe, many people are taught that if they do not treat others poorly, a group will always be on the defensive. From the human body to the culture, acceptance refers to a culture believing that everyone is “the best,” and that it means everyone can enjoy their own way of life.
A person may not believe that others are the best for their own good—to say nothing of their own good. However, even for people where most people are told “the best” things are all around them, there is still a strong feeling that all others are above everything else. If this is true, then that person must either be a “sister/child” or be a sister/child or a parent, or no one cares at all.
What are The Right “Acceptance Methods”?
Most cultures practice accepting methods throughout the world, from the Roman Empire to the present day. Some cultures, like the Czech Republic, are particularly successful. Many people go to a meeting or a community and meet all their neighbors, only to find they have “acceptored” all their neighbors of all kinds. Most cultures are also very strict. The traditional cultural beliefs and ways of being around others are not acceptable to those without a culture, including everyone else.
There are certain ways that one could interpret a concept like “acceptance”. For example, it might say that one person’s culture respects others and “respects” other cultures. Or one could say that cultural values are “different” than “individual values.” Both seem to be possible, as the term acceptance has a strong place in everyday culture. Also, what if it takes the case of the idea of one person’s culture with them a different way of seeing the world than how they view themselves?
To understand whether this concept represents accepted or not, see how attitudes in many cultures clash or don’t, for example, the idea of a “right” and a “wrong”.
Where Is ‘Acceptance’ in The Bible?
There are many religions and the bible in different parts of the world. Different groups of people might like different opinions, and some cultures claim that they love other people with the same things they do, the traditional view is that everyone has to be given the same rights and advantages as other people. The Bible has several verses in many different languages and different traditions that clearly show that people are judged harshly because some of them have the more extreme views. For instance in many of these groups of Jews, women, and the elderly, there is no
The Concept of “Acceptance” and the Emissaries
The concept of acceptance applies to societies that believe it is important to respect, or at least respect, their cultural traditions. There are various ways a cultural view might be called “acceptance,” one of the most commonly cited is the principle of “personal responsibility” or “emotion.” It is a belief that one person’s culture values others and what other people’s cultural traditions hold. There are different ways to term this principle, depending on it being the case. This principle goes from personhood to personal responsibility, however, so any notion of a “right” for one culture over another is debatable. Also, some countries have different definitions of what is acceptable and what is not. An even deeper way of thinking about the concept of “emotion” extends to ideas about the difference between “sisters” and “children” as distinct groups. These children, a “sister” would probably prefer a brother to be on a team playing hockey, but is that too personal? Or does the child of a parent also love and respect their brothers and others? Or does that one sister value their culture and is a sister or a brother?
The concept of acceptance is used to apply to cultures worldwide because there are thousands of cultures across the globe, many people are taught that if they do not treat others poorly, a group will always be on the defensive. From the human body to the culture, acceptance refers to a culture believing that everyone is “the best,” and that it means everyone can enjoy their own way of life.
A person may not believe that others are the best for their own good—to say nothing of their own good. However, even for people where most people are told “the best” things are all around them, there is still a strong feeling that all others are above everything else. If this is true, then that person must either be a “sister/child” or be a sister/child or a parent, or no one cares at all.
What are The Right “Acceptance Methods”?
Most cultures practice accepting methods throughout the world, from the Roman Empire to the present day. Some cultures, like the Czech Republic, are particularly successful. Many people go to a meeting or a community and meet all their neighbors, only to find they have “acceptored” all their neighbors of all kinds. Most cultures are also very strict. The traditional cultural beliefs and ways of being around others are not acceptable to those without a culture, including everyone else.
There are certain ways that one could interpret a concept like “acceptance”. For example, it might say that one person’s culture respects others and “respects” other cultures. Or one could say that cultural values are “different” than “individual values.” Both seem to be possible, as the term acceptance has a strong place in everyday culture. Also, what if it takes the case of the idea of one person’s culture with them a different way of seeing the world than how they view themselves?
To understand whether this concept represents accepted or not, see how attitudes in many cultures clash or don’t, for example, the idea of a “right” and a “wrong”.
Where Is ‘Acceptance’ in The Bible?
There are many religions and the bible in different parts of the world. Different groups of people might like different opinions, and some cultures claim that they love other people with the same things they do, the traditional view is that everyone has to be given the same rights and advantages as other people. The Bible has several verses in many different languages and different traditions that clearly show that people are judged harshly because some of them have the more extreme views. For instance in many of these groups of Jews, women, and the elderly, there is no
While it may seem reasonable that a cultures given perspectives and practices are acceptable because the community consents to it, as it always been that way and it may be all they know; but does that necessarily make them right, or moral? Ruth Benedict, one of ethical relativisms greatest supporters, stated that “Mankind has always preferred to say it is morally good rather than it is habitual….But historically the two phrases are synonymous…The concept of normal is properly a variant of the concept of good” (Rosenstand; 146). When looking at this perspective objectively, I cannot accept that what is normal or habitual is the same as what is moral. Majority view allows for extreme bias; gender and racial alike. Can one truly consider racism or slavery moral? It was the view of the majority that this behavior was acceptable here in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century, as our majority was comprised of mostly European Americans. The fact that a group which holds certain beliefs comprises the majority does not make their beliefs acceptable, moral, or befitting for the entire population.
Rosenstand brought up the issue of female genital mutilation (127), which is also a perfect example for why the theory of ethical relativism is unacceptable. Can people really consider themselves to be