Thank you for your explanation. I think that it is very helpful to learn and practice this principle as we will better understand the world around us. I totally agree with this principle that we should not judge other cultures values or beliefs based on our own. We must respect the values and beliefs of other cultures as much as we do with our. I should try to learn that cultures beliefs and values to understand why people behaved the way they did instead of judging them.
What clearly defines right from wrong is the outcome of the action. If the action causes harm either directly or indirectly it is wrong. Moral relativists fail to look at the consequences of their actions.
The problem of your argument is that the concept of harm is relative. 200 years ago child labor was perfectly accepted, for example. Age of consent was much lower in the past, etc.
3:42 - Not in ancient India, Sati was started to be practised in 12th century under some myths at that time. Instead, Ancient India was more liberal as read from ancient Indian texts.
Personally, they are both worse. I don't subscribe to these moral theories, Clarfondel. But we need to discuss this in class so students will know these moral theories.
Actually, the line that divides the two is 1 blurred. In other words, the example can be both individual and social depending on the context. If it is taken from the individual Inuit perspective, then it's personal. As an ethic group, then it's cultural.
@@PHILOnotes hello there.I am doing a presentation on this topic,so I'm wondering if a could just take a small clip from your video to complement and reinforce the information I will be sharing.
In the examples of the Inuits and the women burning themselves om their husbands' funeral pyres, I can sympathize with those values because I can imagine the thought processes behind them and that they were grounded in logic. However, I think some taboos are universal and we have come into a situation where anyone can conjure any kind of value system and use it to justify heinous acts. I like what someone else on this thread said about looking at the potential consequences of any one act. The Inuits left their elderly to die in the cold presumably because they couldnt care for them properly and also care for themselves. It's sad to think about, but it doesn't have a large, negative ripple effect throughout society. As people in an industrialized society, we may feel disturbed by that, but we have to look at the overall picture, and we don't have a right to try to change that aspect of their culture because then it would be assuming superiority. I don't think that culture is infallible, though, and there are some things within it that can be needlessly harmful on a large scale. It's just hard to know at what level one culture can/should intervene.
When muslim invaded mewar with their vast army men go to war and once they find local army loosing woman embrace burning fire to prevent their dignity , as in Hindus a marriage is bond of life and after life.
This assessment of ethics and morals is wrong. Ethics may be relative to an individual, or occupation, or a particular society or group, as ethics pertain to social constructs, ideas, human reasoning or emotion, or preference. But, ethics and morals are different. Morality, on the other hand, pertains to the definition, intrinsic value, sacred worth, etc, of the individual human being. Morality deals with how a human being is defined, not what individual human beings like or dislike, and is therefore objective. The definition of a human being does not depend on human reasoning and can, therefore, be neither subjective or relative. Only the adherence to objective morality is subjective. We shouldn't use the words ethics and morals interchangeably.
There are some bad that are bad everywhere even though some cultures try to defend their positions especially bad ancient views of religions and morals. I don't think this theory is completely right. I just watched a video where they were saying at terrorists and radical islamists are right in their own culture. Noo!!! In their minds they can be right but it is not Islam and not culture - it is sect where people with mental disorders make their own rules of the world. Please dont confuse cultures and anormal behaviors of group of the people and dont call them right just because these people think so. They are not valuable to the society to be granted the gift of thought and experessing their opinions. These people are trash and yes there is bad deeds that is universally not acceptable! I dont like this theory, it is not correct.
![[LIVE] MCHOICE & MINT AWARDS 2024 at TRUE ICON HALL, ICONSIAM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMewUeT5nbY/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for your explanation. I think that it is very helpful to learn and practice this principle as we will better understand the world around us. I totally agree with this principle that we should not judge other cultures values or beliefs based on our own. We must respect the values and beliefs of other cultures as much as we do with our. I should try to learn that cultures beliefs and values to understand why people behaved the way they did instead of judging them.
Thank you for making this video! I got to understand this principle better.
Thanks heaps for your very inspiring comments, H0M3R. Cheers!
What clearly defines right from wrong is the outcome of the action. If the action causes harm either directly or indirectly it is wrong. Moral relativists fail to look at the consequences of their actions.
@CHIRAQ DRILLINOIS If it causes harm? How???
The problem of your argument is that the concept of harm is relative. 200 years ago child labor was perfectly accepted, for example. Age of consent was much lower in the past, etc.
3:42 - Not in ancient India, Sati was started to be practised in 12th century under some myths at that time. Instead, Ancient India was more liberal as read from ancient Indian texts.
Which school of thought you believe to have more powerful arguments, Ethical Relativism or Ethical Absolutism?
Personally, they are both worse. I don't subscribe to these moral theories, Clarfondel. But we need to discuss this in class so students will know these moral theories.
@@PHILOnotesthen what is your alternative?
Thank you for your sharing your video
Just want to clarify, but shouldn't the first example with the inuits be social or cultural relativism, not personal/individual?
Actually, the line that divides the two is 1 blurred. In other words, the example can be both individual and social depending on the context. If it is taken from the individual Inuit perspective, then it's personal. As an ethic group, then it's cultural.
Exactly what I thought too. I was so confused about that also. Thanks I’m not a lone
When cultural practices are in conflict as to the idea of what is good and just, how do we resolve it?
That's for the people involved to decide! I can't really tell.
@@PHILOnotes thought you'd give me an answer hahaha
You may view our compilation of video lectures in Ethics here: th-cam.com/video/ScvJfxSuYB4/w-d-xo.html
Great Video !
Thank you LaValle! Cheers!
Nice
Thank you, Omio. Best wishes!
What is the criticism of Ethical Relativism???
oh, we'll do that soon
thank you so muchhhhh you saved me because I have my report tomorrow
Glad it helps, Rhea. Best wishes!
@@PHILOnotes hello there.I am doing a presentation on this topic,so I'm wondering if a could just take a small clip from your video to complement and reinforce the information I will be sharing.
In what sense does relativism jeopardize ethics and aesthetic
Relativism may lead to social disintegration
@@PHILOnotes it’s happening today
In the examples of the Inuits and the women burning themselves om their husbands' funeral pyres, I can sympathize with those values because I can imagine the thought processes behind them and that they were grounded in logic. However, I think some taboos are universal and we have come into a situation where anyone can conjure any kind of value system and use it to justify heinous acts. I like what someone else on this thread said about looking at the potential consequences of any one act. The Inuits left their elderly to die in the cold presumably because they couldnt care for them properly and also care for themselves. It's sad to think about, but it doesn't have a large, negative ripple effect throughout society. As people in an industrialized society, we may feel disturbed by that, but we have to look at the overall picture, and we don't have a right to try to change that aspect of their culture because then it would be assuming superiority. I don't think that culture is infallible, though, and there are some things within it that can be needlessly harmful on a large scale. It's just hard to know at what level one culture can/should intervene.
Thank you
thank you so
much
so basicaly live and let live if you wanna shorten it !
Thanks❤
Very nice explanation ma'am.....
Many thanks, Sankhayan. Best wishes!
You may view our compilation of video lectures in Ethics here: th-cam.com/video/ScvJfxSuYB4/w-d-xo.html
This theory sounds pretty unreasonable, especially given the examples.
yeah thanks
When muslim invaded mewar with their vast army men go to war and once they find local army loosing woman embrace burning fire to prevent their dignity , as in Hindus a marriage is bond of life and after life.
Deep!
thank you so much, mate
Thankyou soo much 😭
You are welcome, Sangeeta. Cheers!
You may view our compilation of video lectures in Ethics here: th-cam.com/video/ScvJfxSuYB4/w-d-xo.html
This assessment of ethics and morals is wrong. Ethics may be relative to an individual, or occupation, or a particular society or group, as ethics pertain to social constructs, ideas, human reasoning or emotion, or preference. But, ethics and morals are different.
Morality, on the other hand, pertains to the definition, intrinsic value, sacred worth, etc, of the individual human being. Morality deals with how a human being is defined, not what individual human beings like or dislike, and is therefore objective. The definition of a human being does not depend on human reasoning and can, therefore, be neither subjective or relative. Only the adherence to objective morality is subjective.
We shouldn't use the words ethics and morals interchangeably.
thanks
There are some bad that are bad everywhere even though some cultures try to defend their positions especially bad ancient views of religions and morals. I don't think this theory is completely right.
I just watched a video where they were saying at terrorists and radical islamists are right in their own culture. Noo!!! In their minds they can be right but it is not Islam and not culture - it is sect where people with mental disorders make their own rules of the world. Please dont confuse cultures and anormal behaviors of group of the people and dont call them right just because these people think so. They are not valuable to the society to be granted the gift of thought and experessing their opinions. These people are trash and yes there is bad deeds that is universally not acceptable! I dont like this theory, it is not correct.
yeah, thanks
All this nonsense and confusion is just to disprove the existence of the ONE, TRUE GOD. Period.
We truly respect your position on this topic, @luv cakes
Aristotle anakan mo ako ng bente
thank you so much