Cannibalism, what do you believe of it? Is it morally rectify? Does the theory of ethical relativism support it or does it strike hard it down? Throughout this paper I am traveling to measure the pros and cons of ethical relativism for a instance refering cannibalism. An American adult male by the name of Daniel went to South America, for the grounds of composing a book on it and printing it in the United States, to analyze a native folk and to seek to go portion of it.
While Daniel was analyzing this folk they accepted him, and finally made him portion of their folk. To be initiated into the folk they had to bust a adjacent small town and kill some of their adjacent tribesmen and convey them back and cook and eat their organic structures, which Daniel took portion. Is it morally acceptable for Daniel to prosecute in this ritual, and is it morally correct for Daniel to come back to the United States and pattern this new civilization, which includes cannibalism?
Ethical Relativism is philosophically defined as the position that whatever is morally right is determined by the morality and behaviour that a civilization by and large accepts as morally allowable. In short, the moral truth varies from civilization to civilization. There are four chief parts to ethical relativism that make it easier to understand. First, there is a demand for tolerance and apprehension of other civilizations. Second, there is moral diverseness everyplace and it needs to be tolerated. Following, we should non go through judgement on patterns in other civilizations, which we do non understand. Finally, sometimes sensible people may differ on what is morally acceptable, so why is their place to justice others ethical motives.
Take for illustration our quandary with Daniel and his new civilization. The consecutive ethical relativist would state that whatever civilization Daniel wants to pattern is his concern and no 1 should make anything to halt him from practising what he believes as morally correct. Even if Daniel wanted to pattern this new civilization in the United States the ethical relativist would one time once more say that whatever his civilization deems morally acceptable should be allowed.
Finally, ethical relativism is the suggestion that we let each civilization do as they see fit, but this is merely truly executable when civilizations don Ts have to interact with each other. For illustration, in the instance of Daniel conveying his civilization back to the United States, although the ethical relativist would allow him, but it likely would non last because others would non be as accepting.
In this instance of cannibalism inside a non-cannibalistic society ( for the most portion ) , we must besides look at their behaviour, and what is truly comparative. Different behaviours may convey about or represent the same value, or perchance even the same behaviour may represent different values to an apathetic civilization. So if Daniel s behaviour was accepted by many in the United States, the civilization might be accepted and turn through the United States, but if the encompassing civilization was apathetic to cannibalism Daniel would most probably be castigated and thrown out of the community and perchance even the United States.
Ethical relativism is non helpful at all when covering with overlapping of civilizations. Besides ethical relativism is self-defensive. If we can non judge others so they can neither justice us. From the self-defensive point of view ethical relativism begins to do more sense to myself. So if Daniel were to convey his new cannibalistic society and civilization into the United States, we would non be able to judge them, and they would non be able to judge us or seek to coerce their civilization onto us or our society as a whole. So they would finally kill themselves off if they excessively were ethical relativists. This is so, because if they couldn t justice us or coerce their civilization upon us so they would finally eat each other and their society would decease out ( no wordplay intended ) .
Personally I believe that ethical relativism is merely a worthy belief if civilizations were ne’er to overlap. So fundamentally ethical relativism is worthless today because with the inter-net, world-wide commercialism, and even the United Nations. These points are distinguishable ways that cultures interact with each other presents, excepting travel and touristry. There is no manner that I could be a rock-ribbed ethical relativist for the pure fact that I am non that open- minded. I personally, believe that I am really unfastened to new thoughts, but non as unfastened minded as those who are ethical relativists.
In Daniel s instance I am absolutely accepting of his new cultural beliefs and patterns, when they take topographic point in a society that is already cognizant of their actions that have taken topographic point for many decennaries. Yet, I am a dissembler in the point that if he wanted to convey this absolutely acceptable civilization into the United States and pattern cannibalism as they did, it would immediately go an unacceptable civilization in my eyes to be in the United States.
Although if they were to alter their civilization and non pattern cannibalism or interrupt any other Torahs of the United States their civilization would likely be accepted, but most likely non endorsed by any Americans. I draw that line on my personal ethical motives, which are fundamentally formed around the Torahs, which I must conform to in order to take the life of and upstanding citizen of the United States. So as assumed from the above statements I am non a dedicated ethical relativist, where I am about the complete antonym. I believe every civilization is entitled to their rights, but their rights should non interfere with those in other civilizations environing them.
Ethical relativism is a really hard theory to believe in. You must either be a level out ethical relativist or non one at all. Sometimes we say that we can non judge another civilization because we can non to the full understand them, but if we begin to understand them does it give us the right to judge them. Do we need to hold full apprehension to judge something? Do we hold a full apprehension of ourselves? Does non believing in ethical relativism deny a chief end of multiculturalism or does believing in ethical relativism deny this? Where do you stand?