Morality is Not Relative - Research Paper Example

Moral definition by a society is highly dependent on the perception, attitudes and preferences of a society in the day to day interactions of people that make up that society. According to James Rachels, morality is not relative. Morality and resultant issues can be looked from different points of view. Rachels is well aware of this fact. In his discussion, cultural relativism is considered, alongside moral absolutism. The idea here is to point out the shortcomings associated with cultural relativism in the subject matter; morality.

Use of real life examples enhances Rachels’ ideas, bringing out the natural and social picture that is easily applicable to societies. This is easy to understand and relate with, given the activities that define a given society. A good example used is that of infants and the explanation of how the society would fail to support itself following a cultural relativism application in that society. Specifically, people are socially responsible for bringing up infants under the best available conditions.

If such social responsibilities were not a central focus of the society, then the survival of the infants could be threatened (Pojman 411). On the same note, the society regenerates itself through reproduction, replacing the dead with the newborns. Such a social activity occurs generally without the imposition of rules to govern it. This is evidenced by the fact that a society that would chose not to replace their dead is not by rules fixed to that. However, social responsibility has it that the society should ensure its continuity.

This way, even without rules to govern how infants are brought up, the society does its best to ensure that infants survive and the society ensures its presence over generations. There exists a universal interconnectedness of societies around the world. Universally accepted orders that define the differences between and among societies have been found to link these societies. Societal differences may not be of the magnitude that is thought to exist. Rachels notes this and provides examples that show evidence of this claim.

The example used relate to a society that fails to eat cows while another does, due to various reasons known to these societies (Pojman 410). This is just but example in numerous social contexts around the world. Different societies fail to do something based on reasons unique to them. However, the fail-to-practice code of one society is practice code for another, portraying just how much societies are connected universally. Fixed lifestyles that do not uphold this factor are presented by cultural relativism.

Moral absolutism plays a fundamental role in assessing social interconnectedness. Societies are characterized by both rights and wrongs. In other words, different societies accept the fact that there exits both right and wrong between and among social interactions. However, what is considered right by one society is not necessarily right to other societies. Right and wrongdoings are confined to a specific societal definition by a particular society. On the same note, one society can make strong grounds that another society is right in doing something, while others may refute the right to constitute a wrong.

Although morality is defined uniquely by the concept of right and wrong from one society to another, there are instances that stand out to interest all societies in being within the norms or against such norms. Such an instance is that given by Rachels about