Natural Law Strengths And Weaknesses

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

Cultural relativism is a set of values and beliefs specific to a culture, these values are not universally accepted, but if the people in that culture believe it, and it works. (Brusseau, 2012) It differs from traditional ethics since actions deemed acceptable can be considered unethical universally, although, when incorporated

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

Ethical relativism and ethical objectivism, what are they and how have we come understand them in our time? These two topics have been a center point for many arguments weather you actually talk about it or not. As much as we like to argue in this world in our daily lives we fail to see what stance we hold. This might be because we aren’t educated enough to realize it or it just might be because we don’t care. We will be discussing the differences between ethical relativisms and ethical objectivism so we can get a better grasp and understanding of these two topics. Ethical relativism is mainly based on what the individual person or society believe. It is what they see as morally right and wrong. Ethical objectivism is the view that some moral

Ethical relativism states “there is no universal right and wrong”, and no matter what decision I will come to, will have consequences to my actions (Kottler & Shepard, 2015). We have several students here at our

To understand the difference, conventional laws are created by man and can therefore be destroyed. Natural Law derives itself from nature, a force beyond man's control; therefore, it is unalterable. I believe that misunderstandings about these two types of law, and the connection between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are one reason for the loss of the Natural Law argument.

A helpful ethical theory should give people a clear idea of what to do when facing moral dilemmas, indicating whether a potential action is right or wrong. Natural Law is an absolutist and deontological approach to ethics, giving people clear rules that should be followed no matter the situation. It is derived from human nature, suggesting morality is objective – if human nature does not change, morality does not change either. The theory suggests that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong given to them by God, and that everyone knows what the right thing is; some people just decide not to follow this knowledge. It originates with Aristotle’s idea that everything has a purpose – called its telos – and this purpose must be fulfilled to live a good life. Plato expanded on this concept with his idea of the Forms; eternal, absolute versions of everything that we should strive towards. Ultimately, this theory has both strengths and weaknesses, although the weaknesses outweigh the strengths.

Ethical relativism simply stated, is that our upbringing and the culture we are raised in influences how we make a judgment with regards to what we deem to label with the titles right and wrong.

The contrast between Natural Law and Legal Positivism is a necessary starting point for those who wish to understand the relationship between law and morality, and the most varied manners in which it influences society to this day. When it comes to analyzing which theory offers the most well-rounded idea of law, one can argue that Legal Positivism provides the best definition of what law is at its essence. However, because Legal Positivism came to exist as a critique to what was proposed by Natural Law theorists, it is significant that both are explored in depth as means to support such argument.

Ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two types of meta-ethical views, meaning the two theories attempt to understand the reason behind ethical properties, attitudes, boundaries and judgements. Ethical universalism can be viewed as an ideal world, while ethical relativism explains a more realistic perspective on why different cultures can view the same actions differently. The two delve more into the essential meaning of a theory rather than just simply labeling actions as right or wrong.

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

Ethical Relativism takes the position that morality is relative to time periods, cultures, subcultures within cultures and time periods (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyers, 1987).

In order to compare ethics in the terms of various cultures and moral relativism; one must understand Moral Relativism and various cultures. “Moral Relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint and that no stand point is uniquely privileged over all others.” (Westacott) As an example for better understanding if a person says “you have your way, I have my way; as for the right way, it does not exist.” That is moral relativism.

Natural Law is a deontological moral theory (with several elements of teleological concepts) that determines the morality of an action based on the primary precepts, whilst also reflecting on human nature and rationally working out what leads us to happiness. One of the perceived strengths of Natural Law is the idea that is shares common human nature across the world. This means that we can uphold a moral standard that everyone must follow, rather than finding ourselves stuck with moral relativism or subjectivism. This is a benefit as if morality was subjective then any individual, such as Hitler would be able to justify his actions due to his interpretation of morality being subjective. Similarly, if morality is relative to a particular social culture, then what we think of being morally correct could simply just be a social construct, and we shouldn’t enforce this social construct onto others who follow their own moral law (an example of this is the Western Laws enforced in the Pitcairn trials). Because of a shared human moral code, Natural Law is one of the few moral codes that could state plainly and clearly that murder is wrong, without considering the time, place or scene. This argument, though having its merits, is a victim to what is known as the “is-ought” fallacy. This fallacy was introduced by David Hume and he said, “If something is a particular way by ‘nature’, it does not logically follow to conform. Therefore, even if we have a natural inclination to act in a

In order to address the scenarios in this assignment, one must define the when life begins. According to Thomas Aquinas God created the universe and all plants, animals and life of all types under the doctrine of External Law. Based on his vision, God instilled Natural Law in law to fulfill the parameters of External Law. Self-preservation is not only a function of protecting one’s self being, but also by ensuring the species survives. This is accomplished through the second inclination of procreation. Aquinas’ teachings proclaim that God created the universe and by doing so, created all life. So logic must dictate that life begins at conception and that the developing fetus has already been instilled with Natural Law.