Blog 2

In part one of Metaethical Issue, the author “(acquaints the reader) with some of the most influential ethical perspectives from Western and Eastern philosophical and religious traditions” (6). At first glance I was skeptical of much of the author’s arguments, especially on the topic of cultural relativism and moral relativism, seeing that I at first believed in such things. After keeping an open mind and exploring his thoughts I now see the clarity and rationality in his position. However I completely disagree with latter half of the argument that the author provides against moral relativism. The author argues that for moral relativism to exist people cannot criticize other cultures in the world. In turn, people cannot criticize their own culture (16). The article objects this logical and portrays it as almost absurd by referring to Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi’s acts of successfully of reforming their societal morality by first criticizing it.

I agree that for moral relativism to work all societies must be tolerant and accepting of one another’s beliefs and morals. However, when it comes to one’s own culture I believe that each individual has the capacity to object to their societal morality while keeping moral relativism relevant. I believe in the phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Therefore if one does not submerge themselves within the culture and traditions of a society, then they should not be able to pass judgment on their morals. On the other hand, if a person grew up in a community and truly understands the societal morality of that community they have every right to criticize it if the deem necessary. I believe that each person bears individual morality that is shaped by their experiences in their society and what they personally view as right and wrong. One’s individual morality may negate the moral norm at the time, yet still differ from culture to culture supporting moral relativism.