The Fundamentals Of Ethics By Russ Shafer-Landau

1458 Words6 Pages
Cultural Relativism In society, there is no such thing as a right or wrong action depending on one’s moral norms and their culture. In “ The Fundamentals of Ethics” by Russ Shafer - Landau, ethical relativism is defined as “moral rules” may either be correct or inaccurate based on the individual and their commitment to moral norms. Ethical relativism includes two types of relativism: cultural relativism and individual relativism. (Landau 293) In this essay, cultural relativism will be the main focus along with how it connects to metaethics and its arguments. Metaethics goes into depth explaining both the meaning and use of the ethical language. In other words, metaethics asks the question of how we know whether a certain action is either…show more content…
According to the novel “The Fundamentals of Ethics” by Russ Shafer - Landau, moral equivalence states that “everyone’s basic moral views are as plausible as everyone else’s”. In other words, moral equivalence explains that if subjectivism is true, then the moral beliefs of any individual or group of people are as good or accurate as any other individuals or groups moral beliefs. Shafer - Landau provides us with an example of moral equivalence mentioning “if ethical subjectivism is correct, then the moral outlooks of Hitler or Stalin are just as plausible as those of a Noble Peace laureate.” (landau 296) Another example of this would be slavery back in the 1600’s. Back in the 1600’s people believed what they were doing was correct because it followed their moral norms. Their beliefs of slavery being acceptable during those years is just as strong and good as our belief of slavery being wrong today. In this argument, tolerance would be considered an objection because “if ethical objectivism is true, then tolerance is not valuable.” (landau 328) Tolerance may only be valuable if the views of people are equal, but if their not equal, tolerance is then considered not valuable. Another objection would be based on moral views. If moral views are not “equally plausible” then that would mean that specific moral views may be “less plausible than others”. (landau 328) As a result, moral equivalence can be plausible depending on…show more content…
Moral equivalence explains that everyone has moral views that are all equally “plausible”. The objections for moral equivalence included tolerance not being valuable if ethical objectivism was true and moral views not being “equally plausible” depending on moral norms. (“The Fundamentals of Ethics”) On another note, moral infallibility explains that due to cultural relativism, society cannot be incorrect and gives the objection of ethical objectivism being false if moral standards were applied in only certain cultures (“The Ethical Life”). Cultural relativism as a whole shows different situations in society and how each society and culture differs from one

More about The Fundamentals Of Ethics By Russ Shafer-Landau

Open Document