is morality relative

is morality relative

Jose Molina
9/26/07
Phil. 160
Haghighi

Is Morality Relative?

Gilbert Harman’s definition of moral relativism is that there is no one true morality and that there is a variety of true moralities. Harman also mentioned that we should adopt a morality but realize at the same time that it is not the only true morality. According to him since there are many different moralities we should acknowledge that other people have dissimilar views so we must respect others’ views. He basically states that we should respect people’s views and beliefs so that they can in return respect your own values.
Ronald Dworkin’s view about moral relativism is that it makes life more interesting. Dworkin’s objection to moral and ethical relativism is that our moral principles stop at our limits, and that there are boundaries to moral relativism. Just because we have moral views it does not mean that we can do what ever we want. Dworkin used the example of genocide and Rwanda. Since other people believe that it is okay to kill massive amounts of people, and they have their own certain beliefs towards it, it still does not make it alright to do according to Dworkin. Our moral beliefs and principles have boundaries and limits. He acknowledged that local custom does not overcome man slaughter. He is basically saying that we have to have boundaries because then we would have people do unethical things and then just saying that their morals are different from the majority and use that as their excuse to justify their actions. He also goes on and talks about how our morals and rules are relative so it is unhelpful to look at things universally or in a particularistic manner.
John Finnis’ argument about child labor is that it is okay to do to a certain extent. Of course it is unethical to force children to work when they do not have to, or if it just for cheaper labor costs. But, if a child has to work in order to survive and provide food for his or her family then it is necessary....