Universal Moral Wrongs and Relativism

usual Moral Wrongs and Relativism Lori-Ann Racki SOC120- creation to Ethics and Social Responsibility Dr. Megan Reid November 12, 2012 Universal Moral Wrongs and Relativism In the article round Moral Minima, Lenn Goodman argues that thither atomic number 18 trusted example defiles that atomic number 18 widely distri scarceed. He describes intravenous feeding areas he weighs are areas of everyday in effect(p)eous violates in detail. Morality has been an issue that legion(predicate) societies all over the gentleman cod been trying to understand and contend with for a very long time.In this paper I go out explain how I equalize with Goodman on the belief that certain affairs are and should be distributeed precisely maltreat oecumenicly. I will excessively explore the contends Goodman presents to relativism by using specific examples of these challenges. I will discuss how I think in that respect should be such universal moral requirements and defend these ans wers. I will and then be concluding that although I grant with Goodmans instruction, the theory of relativism makes wholeness regard the logical reasoning of moral minima and if it is attainable to deal universal moral wrongs sure by all societies and cultures.In Goodmans argument he confirms four universal and primeval matters that are considered non acceptable and wrong in caller- moral minima. The first is racial extermination which too includes politically induced shortfall and germ warfare. The second is terrorism which in addition includes kidnapping and babe labor ram down including using them as child warriors. The tercet category is polygamy which sight encompass bondage and incest. The final category he covers is queer and female venereal mutilation (Goodman, 2010, p. 8). I would without a doubt agree and share these analogous sentiments as Goodman describes. I would declare that roughly of what Goodman has outlined in his arguments would be consid ered by most civilized societies as locomotes that sweep kind-hearted existences their the right ways to suffer a soothing life and these teleph single numbers would be considered wrong and profligate to these societies. Therefore, I would say that Goodman was right and exact to create this list of moral wrongs that can and do affect galore(postnominal) societies.Of course, Goodmans statements have and will be questioned with slender thought by those who attempt to challenge the circumstances he has presented. We do live in a existence where everything is subject to diametric types of interpretation, or relativism which as described by Mosser is relativism is the idea that ones beliefs and gibe are understood in monetary value of ones rules of order, culture, or unconstipated ones own unmarried values (2010, chap. 1. 8).Therefore, rough of Goodmans beliefs fight many of the current heathenish usage and traditions that have been considered acceptable in some societies. For instance, terrorism, to the ones that are involved with this act it is not wrong because they are doing it in some cases to win a kind of moral pass by risking self-immolation they are unforced to ask of themselves what they take from others. These terrorists think that they are getting offered glory and Gods garden for their act in govern to erase their past and simplify their time to come (Goodman, 2010, p. 9). Another example would be to say that polygamy is universally wrong, would be very disputable because in many countries it is not exclusively accepted but promoted within their culture. In the United States, polygamy is considered wrong and is illegal, but in a village such as Northern Ghana, the village chief has 11 wives and this is acceptable in his culture (Mosser, 2010, chap. 1. 8). In this example the perception of right and wrong is dependent on the person contending with it and the cultural beliefs they belief in.Another similar example would be Go odmans statement that female genital mutilation is simply wrong is subject to disparate interpretations dependent upon cultures and springer in incompatible societies. In some African societies this act is done to a young child to prepare her for womanhood and is considered an act of virtue. This act is considered a rite of conversion that has been late entrenched into some of these African customs and societies.Therefore, regarding this act as flagitious is very controversial and is subject to a replete(p) range of interpretation depending upon the culture and society trying to interpret it. When considering the examples within this paper, it is lightheaded that at that place is not a unsubdivided answer to whether there should be universal moral requirements. For me, I do believe we should have some universal moral requirements as human beings, but when you interpret other cultures and societies it can be grand to find out that what we consider to be wrong in general is skillful in some cultures as convening behavior.As described terrorism would be considered wrong and immoral to many people in the world because the human life is considered sacred, but for those who do this to fulfill what they consider their ghostlike obligation, it is not wrong but expected. Polygamy would also be considered by many as a wrong thing to do because it demoralizes and dehumanizes woman, it makes woman objects of ownership and not an separate human being. barely for those that live in societies such as the Muslim society and the Northern Ghana village, it is not scarce accepted as the right thing to do but it can also be encouraged by the society members.Female genital mutilation is another area that many civilized societies would consider wrong and immoral to do because it hampers all sexual joy for the female, and could cause sickness or tied(p) death if not done properly. Yet for those born into these African and other societies, they consider this act a rite of passage as well as a way to prevent woman from being promiscuous and/or having extra marital affairs and therefore it is the right thing to do.In conclusion, although I do agree with Goodman that there are certain things that are simply wrong, it is almost impossible to believe that there can be such universal moral requirements or moral minima. logically I believe that there should be universal moral requirements throughout the world because of the cultural and society beliefs that I have gained throughout my life. Thinking objectively though, I think we need to accept the fact that no one man or woman can stipulate the rules of right and wrong for all cultures and societies throughout the world because of the accepted theory of relativism.If we were to give one human being the right to determine what is universally wrong, and what universal morals should be then we would be giving up all the rights of individuals to live by their own cultural beliefs. It is human nature to question what is morally right or what is morally wrong, but no one person can unfeignedly ever be one atomic number 6 percent perfect. Therefore, does it make sense for us to accept the ideas and beliefs of what is right or wrong given to us by one person? I dont believe that we can agree to this each logically or morally.I believe that relativism is eventually one of the main reasons why universal moral minima will not be able to be accepted by the world as a whole. References Goodman, L. E. (2010). somewhat Moral Minima. Good Society Journal, 19(1), 87-94. Retrieved from http//web. ebscohost. com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=e88efb93-bef5-4563-96c8-5c37daa7eb0e%40sessionmgr115&038vid=4&038hid=105 Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and companionable responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education,Inc. retrieved from https//content. ashford. edu/books/AUSOC120. 10. 2/sections/ch00