| rdfs:comment
| - Moral Relativism describes a range of philosophic positions about the universality and parochialism of moral judgement. Simon Blackburn suggests that moral relativism might be a joke of sorts that is told to remind us that "alternative ways of looking at things can be corrupt, ignorant, superstitous, wishful, out of touch or plain evil." (p. 66)
- Antonym: self-righteous relativism, which does not violate The Bible, necessarily, but permits the practitioner to judge (lest he be judged) without insulting The Lord, They Father Image:WWTS1sted1.png "Moral Relativism"is a part of Wikiality.com's dictionary, "Watch What You Say". For the full dictionary, click .
- In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth, although this may itself be considered a statement of universal standard. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limi
- Moral relativism is the theory that moral standards vary from society to society, and from time to time in history. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth. Indeed, variability in what is seen as moral is seen throughout history: with the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi Party, the enslavement of the African people by both European and American powers, the persecution (including torture and murder) of Christians during Roman times and in Communist states, as well as the torture, imprisonment, and murder of scientists during the Eighteenth century by the Catholic Church, all justified by the perpetrators in moral terms. For example, Hitler justified his racial policie
|
| abstract
| - In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth, although this may itself be considered a statement of universal standard. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook. Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the base of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity. (i.e. "Following one's concience".) Moral relativism differs from value pluralism — which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. Moral relativism, in contrast, grants the possibility of moral judgments that do not accept such limits. As well, moral relativism should not be taken as the more extreme stance of moral nihilism, which completely denies the existence of any objective morality.
- Moral Relativism describes a range of philosophic positions about the universality and parochialism of moral judgement. Simon Blackburn suggests that moral relativism might be a joke of sorts that is told to remind us that "alternative ways of looking at things can be corrupt, ignorant, superstitous, wishful, out of touch or plain evil." (p. 66)
- Antonym: self-righteous relativism, which does not violate The Bible, necessarily, but permits the practitioner to judge (lest he be judged) without insulting The Lord, They Father Image:WWTS1sted1.png "Moral Relativism"is a part of Wikiality.com's dictionary, "Watch What You Say". For the full dictionary, click .
- Moral relativism is the theory that moral standards vary from society to society, and from time to time in history. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth. Indeed, variability in what is seen as moral is seen throughout history: with the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi Party, the enslavement of the African people by both European and American powers, the persecution (including torture and murder) of Christians during Roman times and in Communist states, as well as the torture, imprisonment, and murder of scientists during the Eighteenth century by the Catholic Church, all justified by the perpetrators in moral terms. For example, Hitler justified his racial policies by saying: The greatest achievements in intellectual life can never be produced by those of alien race but only by those who are inspired by the Aryan or German spirit. In view of the narrowness of the space within which German intellectual work and German intellectual workers have to live they had a natural moral claim to precedence and preference. [1] Similarly, the case for slavery was often made in moral terms, with Thomas Dew arguing in 1832 that: With regard to the assertion, that slavery is against the spirit of Christianity, we are ready to admit the general assertion, but deny most positively that there is any thing in the Old or New Testament, which would go to show that slavery, when once introduced, ought at all events to be abrogated, or that the master commits any offence in holding slaves. The children of Israel themselves were slave holders, and were not condemned for it.…When we turn to the New Testament, we find not one single passage at all calculated to disturb the conscience of an honest slave holder. [2] In recent times, according to the Discovery Institute: Moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still under girds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology. [3]
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)