Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism states that there is no right or wrong, but these evaluations must be understood relative to a culture, a society, or even an individual. This approach seems to allow us to avoid having to defend ethical claims that can be difficult to defend; however, others maintain that relativism has certain crippling problems (Mosser, 2010). In the writing, “Some Moral Minima,” Lenn E. Goodman argues that certain things are just wrong. When I consider my own morals, immediately I feel agreement with this statement, but part of me has difficulty grasping that only one accurate ethic exists, that we can reach one international agreement on issues. In this paper I will provide my opinion on the challenges Goodman presents to relativism and my thoughts on moral universality.

Goodman asks us, “Why is genocide uglier than murder? Why is mass murder any different than a criminal’s killing of a marked victim?” Genocide is when members of a group seek to destroy an entire race, culture, linguistic or ethnic identity (Goodman, 2010). Clearly the answer lies in the intent of the action, not the measure of the crime. This topic brings me to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. This threat brought about consideration for mass defense weapons to hit large numbers fast. Considering that our terrorist threats were Muslims, would this not be genocidal practice on this race? Many labeled American Muslims as terrorists because they were like the enemy, but two wrongs do not make a right. This belief was no different from Al-Qaeda grouping all Americans into one belief system.

Genocide should be considered as universally immoral. Goodman states that moral barriers are stripped away in escalating violence, yet warfare is not always wrong (Goodman, 2010). To me this is a valid stance and one I agree with however, not all cultures would support this opinion.

Many people believe that slavery no longer exists, but it still happens today in the form of human...