Think and act ethically module 2

Reflect on the following trigger questions in the discussion forum. Take into account

count the readings and topics of the module:

Why is cultural relativism a challenge to defending a 'universal ethics'?

The challenge to defend a Universal ethics against the position of relativism

Cultural, it consists of this way of understanding morality, developing the idea that each

town has its own codes, in the words of James Rachel, many thinkers

they agree that different cultures have different moral codes. The idea of

universal truths in ethics, they say, is a myth. (Rachel, 2015) For this reason, defending the

The idea of one culture's ethics over another is to be a bit arrogant. (Rachel, 2007). Without

however, these relativistic postulates have serious objections, which make it so for many

a morality unsustainable from this worldview.

For example: Cultural relativists would prevent us from saying that some practices such as the

Racism and anti-Semitism are incorrect. And the truth is that practically in any

culture these acts are highly condemnable, and so it can be said that slavery

and antisemitism seem wrong wherever they occur. (Rachel, 2007).

How the cases reviewed in this module allow you to understand the issues that

Does moral relativism enclose?

The analysis of the reviewed cases can help us understand the problems that

it raises moral relativism by showing how different moral systems can come into

conflict and how it can be difficult to determine what the correct moral system is in a

specific context. (Rachel, 2015). This helps to accept that there are many ways of seeing the

morality, and learning to have respect for other cultures. But it also helps to consider that in

certain measure two opposed moral postulates do not seem to be correct in themselves

time, if we speak in general terms. In the words of Socrates: "it is clear that the same

what will not be willing at the same time to do or suffer opposing things regarding it

same and in relation to the same object.

So a society that lies to itself, and gossips, without any shame, would be further away from the

moral truth, what another society. For this reason, Rachel argued that a society that

Either it does not tell the truth or it has no respect for life, it is difficult for it to survive.

time. But it must also be said that, in most cultures, it seems to be

Present this idea of respecting these values. (Rachel, 2007).

So according to that, we can infer that there must be universally existing issues.

closer to a possible absolute reality. In this context, it could be stated that

certain similarities between cultures in defending these similar ideas would show that there is a

universal moral law that governs. According to the medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, there exists a

natural law is 'nothing more than the light of intelligence infused in us by God.'

Thanks to her we know what should be done and what should be avoided. God has bestowed this.

light and this law in creation." In other words, for Aquinas, natural law is a

participation of the rational creature in the eternal law, which is imprinted in nature

human and is revealed to us through reason, of course in general traits.

Can we reconcile the thesis that 'ethical norms must be for all people' with

At the same time that we recognize the diversity of moral codes in each culture?

I find that the way to reconcile the two positions, which may seem apparently

contradictory, is placing absolute guidelines. As Kant said

(2012), who proposed the categorical imperative as the maxim of universal morality, which

it tells us that we must treat others as ends in themselves and not as means to

our purposes. From my perspective and appealing again to Rachel, I believe there are some

basic guidelines that must be established to avoid falling into social nonsense.

At least the unrestricted right to life and the equality of all before the law must be defended.

law, to defend that truth becomes a cultural basis. If in these basic conditions not

We can come to an agreement, I think there are other aspects where we can still reach a consensus.

cultural understanding. As Rawls (1995) would say, who acknowledged the existence of a

reasonable pluralism among the different conceptions of the good that can coexist in a

democratic society, as long as they respect the basic principles of justice such as

equity. These should be an essential characteristic of morality in any society, without

embargo, there are secondary elements that do not have to become laws

taxes for everything.

Bibliography:

Aquinas, T. (2001). Summa Theologica (Vol. 1). Library of Christian Authors

Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. García Morente,

Published by Alianza Editorial.

Plato (n.d.). The Republic (F. García Trevijano, Trans.). Alianza Editorial (1988).

Introduction to Moral Philosophy

Rawls, J. (1995). Theory of Justice (M. D. González, Trans.). Cultural Fund

Economic. Essay

Instructions

For this module, you must write a piece of approximately 600 words in which

analyze the case.

Read the case about the Eskimos that you will find at:

Introduction to Moral Philosophy, by James Rachels

Chapter II. The challenge of cultural relativism 1. How different cultures have

different moral codes (pp. 29-30)

Identify the moral problem(s) and the parties involved, and infer their interests;

discuss the case in terms of finding a common point in the diversity of interests that

identify.

In your analysis, consider the following questions:

Is it ethically correct to judge the customs of other cultures based on our standards?

moral?

Is it an intolerant act to suggest that my code of ethics is better (objectively) than the

other ethical codes?

Your analysis should be approximately 600 words in length and all sources

must be cited correctly using the APA format. The information about the

Guidelines are available in the Start here menu. Use a standard font type of

10 or 12 points and write your essay double-spaced.

According to Chapter 2 of the book Introduction to Moral Philosophy by James Rachels. Answer this:

Why is cultural relativism a challenge for defending a 'universal ethics'?

How the cases reviewed in this module allow you to understand the problems that

Does moral relativism enclose?

Can we reconcile the thesis that 'ethical norms must be for all people' to

the same time that we recognize the diversity of moral codes of each culture?

How can the prisoner's dilemma help us appreciate the value of cooperation?
 Cultural relativism and human rights: an ethical analysis of the case of

eskimos.

Introduction

In this brief essay, I intend to analyze the case of the Eskimos from chapter 2 of

James Rachel, where we will address two questions: Is it ethically right to judge the

customs of other cultures based on our moral code? Is it an intolerant act?

to argue that my code of ethics is better (objectively) than other codes of ethics? For

To respond to these questions, I will do so based on the thought of Plato and

Aristotle and we will nuance it with the thoughts of some modern thinkers.

Development

Is it ethically correct to judge the customs of other cultures based on our own?

moral code?

If we base ourselves on cultural relativism, it would be ethically incorrect to judge the

customs of other cultures based on our moral code, since we would be

imposing our criteria over theirs (Rachel, 2007, p. 34).

However, this stance also has its difficulties and criticisms. On one hand,

it can lead to moral skepticism by denying the possibility of rational knowledge

about the good and the bad. On the other hand, it can lead to moral conformity, by accepting

uncritically the norms and values of our own culture. Furthermore, it can hinder the

defense of human rights against violations or injustices that may arise

to commit in other cultures.

 Unintentionally claiming to be the owners of the truth, I believe that a dialogue can be established.

dialogue based on some universal values and that these principles are valid for

all human beings, regardless of their culture or time period. In the words of

Aristotle: "True happiness consists in doing good." (2008, p. 23). The search

The good in such a case should be the highest purpose of human beings. Plato, for his part, is going to

saying: "By seeking the good of our fellow beings, we will find our own." (2008, p. 45).

The question would be what is good? Well, good is at least certain values that

should be a common denominator in all cultures. These values or principles are

must be based on human dignity.

We can find this already without any kind of relativism and starting from a certain

form of universalism, in the declaration of human rights, which consists of a

preamble and 30 articles covering different aspects of dignity, freedom, the

equality, justice and peace for all people, without distinction of race, sex, religion,

political opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other condition.

(United Nations General Assembly, 1948)

That is why in the case of the Eskimos, beyond judging their culture based on the

ours, I believe that all cultures should be judged by these rights of dignity

human, above any circumstantial, social, or political interest. That's why for me the

The case of infanticides must be completely rejected, whether they have done it or that there is.

this happened in the West. In the same way that the Frankfurt School denounced the

Nazis' utilitarianism towards the Jews. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2007, p. 9).

Is it an intolerant act to suggest that my ethical code is better (objectively) than the

other ethical codes?

 From Rachel's perspective, imposing one moral code over another is arrogant and

largely intolerant. (Rachel, 2007, p. 34). Tolerance is an ethical value, which has

that being present in any moral development, this duty also has a character

universal. Voltaire (2017, p. 123) said: 'Tolerance is the best religion.'

The same question leads us to think that intolerance is bad in itself. And

that by antonomasia every society should be tolerant. And despite the fact that tolerance in

a great virtue. Edmund Burke stated: 'There is a limit beyond which tolerance ceases to be

virtue". (Museum of Memory and Tolerance, n.d.) Tolerance is not unlimited nor indifferent,

but it has its limits and conditions. Not everything that is done or is tolerated.

it says in the name of morality, but only that which does not violate human dignity nor

against fundamental rights.

In this same sense, we cannot be tolerant regarding some

ideologies that promote intolerance. For example: Montaigne defended the freedom of

awareness, respect for diversity, and intercultural dialogue as ways to overcome the

prejudices and the violence generated by religious and political intolerance.

Conclusion.

We can say that it is ethically incorrect not to be tolerant towards others.

cultures and furthermore to claim that our morality is above any other. Without

embargo, I think we should consider that it is reasonable to engage in a dialogue around principles

fundamentals that are above race, sex, language, religion, political opinion,

national or social origin.

Bibliography:

United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Humans.

Plato. (2008). The Republic. (A. Gómez Robledo, Trans.). Mexico: Porrúa.

Aristotle. (2008). Nicomachean Ethics. (G. R. Carone, Trans.). Buenos Aires: Editorial

Losada.

Rachels, J. (2007). Introduction to Moral Philosophy (1st ed.). Economic Culture Fund

Dialectic of Enlightenment. Fragments

philosophical. Trotta.

Museum of Memory and Tolerance. (n.d.). There is a limit where tolerance ceases to be a virtue.

Unable to access external links or content.