Ethical relativism is when no ethical principles are universally valid at the same time. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard. Simply stated, it means that there are no intrinsically right or wrong actions. According to that particular social community. What is universally socially acceptable is widely variable. Therefore we as a society may not impose a universal set of laws when it concerns ethics. If moral standards go no deeper than social customs, no one way of doing things is any better or worse than the next.

The anthropological argument for cultural relativism says that, because people in different cultures disagree about the morality of various actions, there are no universal moral standards. But the fact that people disagree does not, by itself, imply that there are no absolute moral standards. Only in conjunction with certain other assumptions can that conclusion be reached. By making these assumptions explicit, we can better judge the soundness of the anthropological argument for cultural relativism. Here's one way of spelling out the argument:

1) People in different societies make different moral judgments regarding the same action.

Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment

ism gives way for three implications concerning ethics. The first is ethical relativism preaches tolerance towards different cultures and their ethics. Giving cultural freedom in which no one culture can forcible institute their laws of ethics on another culture. Ethical relativism also develops the argument that no moral argument is possible. And it also says that to become ethical means, one will have to conform to a culture given ethics.

Ethical judgments and moral rules always reflect the cultural context from which they are derived and cannot be immediately applied to other cultural contexts. Having tolerance for others’ ethics is closely related to cultural relativism. In which our moral beliefs tend to reflect the culture in which we grew up. If we grew up in Syria, we may believe that it's morally permissible to have more than one wife. If we grew up in India, we may believe that it's morally permissible for wives to be burned alive along with their dead husbands on a funeral pyre. (Which is an ancient traditon in which the dead body is burned on a pile of wood. Or whatever that particular tradition calls for) If we grew up in America, however, we are likely to believe that these practices are not morally permissible. Since people in different cultures have different moral beliefs, the conclusion that morality is relative to culture seems unavoidable.

By this point in the paper I have well defined ethical relativism and the three implications that occupancy it. Now I will tell how two anthropologist view ethical relativism. Both who consider themselves relativist. They are Ruth Benedict and Solomon Asch.

Some topics in this essay:
Solomon Asch, Seas Islanders, RELATIVISM Ethical, According Asch, Ethical Relativism, , Joseph Ratzinger, Ethical Relativists, Catholic Catholic, ethical relativism, moral standards, moral judgments, difference moral, cultural relativism, moral judgment, accept moral standards, relativism ethical, views nature, people societies, moral argument, universal moral standards, difference moral judgments, difference moral standards, ethical relativism ethical, Benedict Solomon,