The Discord of Relativism in Relation to Universal Wrongs - Essay Example

But ultimately there are conduct and actions that are acceptable or at the very least inoffensive and which holds in it a universal truth of applicability. In a directly inverse rationalization of the same concept, there are things that are inherently wrong no matter which corner of the world the same is committed. Lenn Goodman in “Some Moral Minima” exemplified on the assumption that there are inherently wrong things that would never pass any test of appropriateness. This assertion was based on four instances Goodman relates as ‘Deserts’ or expressions which distinguish human beings.

His discourse on the verity of this proposition revolved around 1. genocide and induced famine, 2. terrorism and other acts such as hostage taking, 3. slavery, incest and polygamy and 4. rape and clitoridectomy or the removal of a female’s pleasure organ. The author recognizes the commonality among the enlisted illustration of wrongful acts because “All the wrongs my proposed norms speak against drag with them some violation of the truth. Not that truth is somehow the arch-imperative from which all others rise, as if by deduction.

But the linkage does suggest a way of looking at (or looking for) key moral norms” (Goodman, 2010, p.92). Essentially this argument is in direct contradiction to relativism which suggests that what constitutes right and wrong is dependent upon every culture, person or society. This truly is an appealing take on ethical perspectives because it creates a very wide ground to exonerate wrongful acts as long as they are permitted at any one exception. It qualifiedly extinguishes the distinction between right and wrong whenever relativism is accurately applied.

“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, p.11). The adherence to relativism would render the argument of Goodman devoid of any merit in the same way that Goodman’s proposition is in direct contradiction to relativism. Goodman did make a direct mention of relativism as the same was inevitable due to the conflict between the concepts. There are cultural and individual distinctions which qualify and fundamentally affect the customs of normal life.

But emphasis was divulged in that people can deliberately perplex every given situation to distort the same through the simplistic reasoning that is anchored in relativism. There are objective values that are to be upheld above all others. This is not to say that they are absolutely unjustified but that they are not to be used indiscriminately. The opposition to relativism in the essay was delved into with Goodman’s suggestion that polygamy is among those that are simply wrong. “Relativists will say that romantic love and companionate marriage are recent inventions, culture-bound and fraught with troubles of their own… But to say that an institution has a history or cultural setting does not imply that any alternative to it is equally humane” (2010, p.91). This is among the arguments that I do agree with.

Yes, it may be true that divorce does occur and it is virtually available in all countries, but this does not in any way lessen the value given to marriage by any culture. There are different rituals that occur and the celebration of which vary accordingly but this only goes to show that the same is given much import. Polygamy is even perhaps among the reasons which perpetuate the truth in why Goodman states