Cs代写 , 编程代写 , 代码代写 服务：matlab代写，C++代写，C++代做，C++代考，C语言代写，C语言代做，C语言代考，数学代写，商科代写，经济学代写，Java代写，Java代做，Java代考，Python代写，Python代做，Python代考，论文代写，essay代写，留学生代写等留学生作业代写服务，免费售后修改服务，保证诚信代码。https://lunwen.littlefairyessay.com/csdaixieym2/
In this paper, I will focus on the Moral Relativism theory based on James Rachels’ insights and its logical flaw. I will first introduce the main ideas of Moral Relativism and explain the Cultural Differences Argument as its main argumentative strategy with concrete examples. Then; I will discuss the logical flaw of CDA as Rachels has suggested. Lastly, I will discuss Rachels’ argument that Moral Relativism is not necessary false even it has a logical flaw and presents the three consequences of accepting Moral Relativism.
According to James Rachels in his book The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Fourth Edition, Moral Relativism refers to the philosophical position that different societies have different moral codes that determine whether a certain practice is right or wrong within the society (p. 18). To put this definition into perspective, there is no moral “right” or “wrong” because different societies have different moral opinions for their cultural practices. The main ideas of Moral Relativism are that different societies have different moral codes and that whether a certain practice is right or wrong should be evaluated against its society’s moral codes (Rachels p. 18). Therefore, there is no objective standard or universal moral truth that can be used to evaluate or compare one moral code from a certain society with that of another society. The underlying reason is that moral codes only make sense within their societies as “merely one among many” (Rachels p. 19). Given this stance, people should be tolerant of other different practices because it is arrogant to judge another culture (Rachels p. 17). Those general ideas of Moral Relativism suggested by Rachels have offered a brief introduction about Moral Relativism.
Several examples of cultural differences are often used to support Moral Relativism, such as human sacrifice, female genital mutilation, infanticide, and different funeral practices. Those practices are believed to be normal in certain cultures but are considered as cruel and immoral in some other cultures. Take female genital cutting as an example; it is still practiced in some African countries. In those regions, female genital cutting is considered as an act to promote the family happiness as reduced sexual pleasure of women could lead to reduced unwanted pregnancies and less marital infidelity and the husbands would feel more pleased. In this case, female excision is a beneficial action to men, women, and their families. However, taking another perspective from the human health, female excision could threaten the physical and psychological health of the women with short-term injuries such as bleeding and infection, as well as long-term effects of psychological trauma when it is operated at an early age. It is widely considered as a barbaric act internationally that could be abolished for the physical and psychological health of women and their equal rights. Thus, whether female genital cutting is right or wrong depends on which moral stance one takes. When the World Health Organization or Americans condemn such practice as immoral and extremely cruel, some African regions where such action is practiced take it as a beneficial practice.
Moral relativists justify their viewpoint of Moral Relativism by the Cultural Differences Argument (CDA), which concludes that there is no objective moral truth as right and wrong is determined by moral codes that vary from culture to culture (Rachels p. 19). CDA considers the cultural variety of different societies and believes that it is unreasonable to judge another culture as morally right or wrong. The CDA argument that there is no objective moral truth is built on the premise that different cultures have different moral codes to justify cultural practices within their cultures. For instance, the Eskimos do not take infanticide as wrong when Americans believe it as an immoral act. The Eskimos inhabited in the Northern parts of the North America continent where the climate is extreme, and resources are scarce. Eskimos might kill their newborn babies because they believe they would not survive such extreme conditions. Killing some feeble babies would allow the rest to live with the limited food resources. To most of the modern people like Americans, they would might infanticide as completely preposterous and extremely unacceptable as it violates the basic human rights of the baby. Given the differing attitudes of Eskimos and Americans towards infanticide, moral relativism would suggest that infanticide as one cultural practice could not be considered as morally right or morally wrong (Rachels p. 20). The Eskimos have their moral opinions to justify their actions. People from other cultures could not use their own moral opinions to judge others. Following the CDA, the conclusion would be the same for other cultural practices such as the different practices of Greeks and Callatians in eating the dead.
After giving a brief introduction of Moral Relativism and the center argument of CDA, Rachels states the logical flaw of the Cultural Differences Argument as unsound (p. 20). Rachels points out that the conclusion of the CDA doesn’t follow logically from the premise as it “attempts to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject from the mere fact that people disagree about it” (p. 21). Rachels points out that a sound argument must build on true premises and the logic from the premise to the conclusion, which the CDA certainly does not possess. It is because the giving premise that moral codes vary from culture to culture, it does not adequately prove the conclusion that moral truths do not exist. The premise describes different beliefs people have from different societies while the conclusion defines the case as a matter of fact (Rachels p. 20). Given the above illustration, the CDA is a logically flawed argument. Rachels also uses another example to support his argument about the logical flaw of CDA. He illustrates that people could not say that there is no objective truth in geography just because some people believe the earth is flat while some other people believe that the earth is a sphere (Rachels p. 20). People should not ignore the possibility that some people could believe in the wrong things. It is scientifically and universally acknowledged that the earth is a sphere, but some people especially the less educated people might not know about it and falsely believe it is round. Thus, it is illogical to states that there is no objective truth about the shape of the earth.
However, Rachels makes it clear that the presence of the CDA’s logical flaw does not imply that the Moral Relativism is false, while he also points out that people who acknowledge the rightfulness of Moral Relativism would have to face several consequences (p. 21). Rachels’ example proves that Moral Relativism is unsound, but that does not necessarily prove the argument of Moral Relativism is false. The first consequence of accepting Moral Relativism is that people could not evaluate practices of other societies as wrong or inferior just because they are different from theirs (Rachels p. 21). People would have no position to criticize some seemingly cruel or inhumane practices such as female genital mutilation in some African countries because only the moral opinions of those African countries could determine whether the female genital cutting is right or wrong. Thus people from other countries should not judge such practice using cultural knowledge of their society. Secondly, people will not be able to criticize the moral codes within their cultural society (Rachels p. 22). Young girls could not refuse to accept the child marriage that their parents have arranged for them when such thing as child marriage conforms to the moral codes of their society. Moral Relativism prevents people from criticizing the improper cultural practices within their societies. Thirdly, moral progress is unlikely to happen under Moral Relativism (Rachels p. 22). Moral progress refers to the practice of abandoning the old practices and replacing them with new ones that seem more plausible. However, since Moral Relativism prevents people from examining their practices and comparing with other cultures, moral progress might not happen.
Work Cited
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill Education, 2003.