This thesis is, I think, obvious to everybody. The Diversity Thesis is nothing more than the observation that not everybody agrees what the most important values are, or what obligations humans have to one another, or what actions are forbidden by moral law, etc. We may not be able to know with certainty that our moral beliefs are closer to the truth than those of another culture or those of others within our own culture, but we may be justified in believing this about our moral beliefs. There are two components to the relativist’s position. And what it denies is a good way of telling what it is opposed to: Morality does not occur in a vacuum, but rather what a society considers morally right or wrong must be seen in a context, depending on the goals, wants, beliefs, history, and environment of that society. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper?
It asserts that the validity of moral obligations, moral values, etc. Their experiences and commitments overlap deeply, and yet we find disagreement, argument, dissention. Let me rephrase — the dependency thesis asserts that moral obligation of any kind is grounded in the particular beliefs that I or we happen to hold. It says that whenever I am morally obligated to perform some action, whenever I am morally forbidden to perform an action, or whenever I am called by my moral commitments to live out some virtue or other, all this obligation is based on the belief that I am so obligated. So if you are a relativist, whether of the cultural or the individualist type, then you believe not only that people tend to disagree, but also that the validity of their obligations rests on nothing more than the fact that they perceive themselves to be under those particular obligations. With conventionalism it is all about the society or culture, but then it becomes a question of how many individuals it takes to make a society.
How about African Americans?
A Critique of Ethical Relativism | Papers at
We can reason and perform thought experiments in order to make a case for one system over another. It asserts that the validity of moral obligations, moral values, etc.
What is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so there are no moral principles that all societies accept. So if you are a relativist, whether of the cultural or the individualist type, then you believe not only that people tend to disagree, but also that the validity of their obligations rests on nothing more than the fact that they perceive themselves to be under those particular obligations.
This move saves the conventionalist from moral solipsism, but it still permits almost any principle at all to count as moral. This is a statement by Ted Bundy, paraphrased and rewritten by Harry V.
Still, there is a rich diversity of voices in that chorus of writers. The conclusion that is drawn, then, is: There are two eependency on the dependency thesis. It seems that we need some higher dspendency than culture by which to assess a culture. The kind of common features that Kluckhohn and Wilson advance — duties of restitution and reciprocity, regulations on sexual behavior, obligations of parents to children, a no-unnecessary-harm principle, and a sense that the good people should flourish and the guilty people should suffer — these and other features constitute a common human experience, a common set of values within a common human predicament of struggling to survive and flourish in a world of scarce resources.
The weak thesis says depenedncy the application of principles depends on the particular cultural predicament, whereas the strong thesis affirms that the principles themselves depend on that predicament.
Pojman on Relativism
What the relativist needs is a strong thesis of dependency, that somehow all principles are essentially cultural inventions. If this is so, tehsis the indeterminacy-of-translation thesis, which relativism rests on, must itself be relativized to the point at which it is no objection to objective morality. Louis Pojman argues for objectivism instead of relativism in morality even though we are attracted to the idea of relativism.
All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance. Now that is diversity! We distinguished a weak and a strong thesis of dependency. Let’s look a thssis closer at this thesis, for it is really the more important of the two.
Louis Pojman Short Summary Essay
This is as good a definition of relativism as any. Of course, if my partner dies, I could still claim that I depeendency acting from an originally social set of norms. All it says — thus far — is that people disagree with each other. Now, none of this, absolutely none of thesid, should lead one to think that ethical relativism is true. In order for ethical relativism to be true, the dependency thesis needs to be true also.
And what it denies is a good way of telling what it is opposed to: We will write a custom sample essay on Louis Tthesis Short Summary specifically for you. Your Answer is very helpful for Us Thank you a lot! The nonrelativist can accept a certain relativity in the way moral principles are applied in various cultures, depending on beliefs, history, and environment.
He states a variety of general ethical principles ten, specifically, which may have a connection to the Ten Commandments or may just be a coincidence that seem to be necessary to rid suffering, resolve conflict, and promote cependency flourishing. Does it need ten or fifteen people? Louis Pojman Short Summary. For example, if Mary is a U. For even if we did find one or more universal principles, this would dependrncy prove that they had any objective status.