There will always be an argument about what is right and what is wrong. People have different morals, standards, and beliefs on what they believe are right and wrong. According to Goodman, “The fact is, we humans and the societies we constitute can be wrong, unjust, and vicious—hugely or trivially, tragically or self-deceivingly.” (Goodman, 2010, p. 88, para. 2). Moral choices are conducted on a daily basis, by every culture, which can be viewed on an ethical scale of right or wrong, by other cultures. In her writing of “Some Moral Minima”, Lenn E. Goodman views several aspects of morality and relativism, and argues that certain things are just wrong. In presenting my own morals, I agree with this statement; however, pondering the image, that only one accurate ethic exists and that we may be able to find universal moral requirements and arrive at a multiethnic agreement on issues presented by Goodman is a parable. In this paper, I will state my opinion on challenges Goodman presents to relativism. I will also provide my thoughts on if there are such universal moral requirements.
Ethical relativism insists that there is no right or wrong, but that it may be understood relative to a culture, a society, or even an individual. Relativism may be used when claims come about that is hard to defend, but at the same time can cause other problems. There may come a time where you might want to say something stronger than what relativism allows. Also, if relativism is pushed to its extreme, it may be hard to understand where a person is coming from on a relatively basis. Abortions may relatively be a right thing to do according to one culture but to the other culture it may be totally wrong. In Goodman’s initial area of discussion of “Some Moral Minima; Genocide, Famine, and Germ Warfare (Goodman, L.E., 2010)”, she states “Genocide targets individuals as members of a group, seeking to destroy a race, a culture, a linguistic or ethnic identity (Goodman, L.E., 2010)”. I...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document