Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font-kerning: none}
span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}

Moral Objectivism and Moral Relativism
Moral objectivism is the view that every individual has the same basic moral principles that valid for all situations at all time. This philosophy denounces moral relativism which is primarily concerned with the differences in moral judgments across the world from different people and cultures. Essentially this view takes into consideration that there are various customs that are accepted and others that are not in different countries. One example is that it is not right to harm someone just because you feel like it but it could be considered justly if it was accepted in the culture. Objectivism stresses the importance of believing in justified propositions in decision making and that right and wrong are unchanging standards. Ethical relativism rejects the idea of the universality of moral principles, because situations change there is no fact of the matter about unqualified claims, it may be right to hit or shove because you feel like it because different cultures believe different things. Moral objectivism and moral relativism have fundamentally different core views and have been studied by philosophers and psychologists alike.
Objectivism is an empirical claim that requires a systematic investigation since it is a belief that moral principals are shared globally. Two individuals, Goodwin and Darley, conducted a study and provided participants with a number of statements about factual situations, moral situations, conventual situations, and situations of taste. The conductors of the experiment would ask various questions regarding the different matters to discover that with each statement someone would hold the opposite view. The questions would be, ‘is the earth at the center of the universe’, ‘is it morally wrong to consciously discriminate against someone on the basis of race’, ‘talking loud and consistently to the person next to you is a permissible action’, and ‘classical music is better than rock music’. (Sarkissian, page 3) When the entrants would discuss why there were disagreements and seventy percent of the participants would answer that the other individuals had to be incorrect in their moral judgments. With this factored Goodwin and Darley discovered that people are highly objectivists about moral transgressions and somewhat less objectivist about factual questions. This portion of the experiment and the evidence was proving that a majority of people were moral relativists. Another part of the study, participants were then asked to choose which options represented their personal views.” One, is it okay to hit or shove people just because you feel like it? Two, it is not okay to hit or shove people just because you feel like it. Three, there is no fact of the matter about unqualified claims ‘It’s okay to hit or shove people just because you feel like it.’ Different cultures believe different things, and it is not absolutely true or false that it’s okay to hit people just because you feel like it.” (Sarkissian, page 3) Majority of the participants chose option one or option two this is evidence against moral objectivism because it is a clear disagreement of beliefs.
As for my own personal thoughts of moral relativism and moral objectivism, I believe most individuals are moral relativists. Different cultures have a variety of different views on scenarios, in certain countries suicide is seen as an act of honor while in others it is a horrific tragedy and selfish. There are universal topics we can all agree on I believe, such as it is wrong to commit murder unjustly. With that stated though, there would be arguments about what would be considered unjustly. Is it wrong to kill someone who has assaulted you then kill them after? Or would it have to be in the moment of the attack for you to rightfully kill them and for it to be considered self defense? Moral objectivism seems to be an overly optimistic view of the world and that all people agree on what is right and wrong and this factor in my day to day experience simply is untrue. Moral relativism seems more plausible to the mass majority of people rather than moral objectivism. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Glenda!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out