Fluent Essays

READ GUIDELINES FOR PAPER AND SEE EXAMPLE FOR REFERENCE ON FORMAT. ARTICLE FOR READING ALSO ATTACHEDThe first half of the paper provides a summary of the reading - A summary provides an overview of the key points. You cannot mention everything the author says within the space you have been provided…don’t try. Provide only the central points of the reading/readingsThe second half providing analysis of the reading. - This will most likely be an exploration of the key points that you have already mentioned. This can take a variety of forms. You can apply these key points to a case/situation from another class. You can explain a flaw in the author’s logic. You can explain whether the religious argument can be made palatable for all without losing anything from the original teaching. Or, you can argue (with support) why you think the authors point is helpful or inadequate. ethical_relativism.pdf paper_guidelines_.docx mgt_228_paper_example.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Ethical Relativism Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of Culture, diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree: We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46) Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of cultural taste. Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of ones culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a societys practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing ones parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative. Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a societys norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of ones society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking? Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society. For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others. But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold. This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V5 N2 (Summer 1992) From http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html Paper Guidelines: Papers are to be written double-spaced in Times New Roman 12 with 1-inch margins on each side. Papers should be structured with the first half of the paper providing a summary of the reading and the second half providing analysis of the reading. Two or three discussion questions should complete the paper. Page numbers should be provided for key points from the readings and for quoted material. Late papers will be lowered by one full grade (ex. B- becomes a C-). The last day to turn in late papers is the final day of class. Use your own wording as much as possible. Page numbers must be provided for key points from the readings and for quoted and paraphrased material. You may place numbers at the end of sentences like this (author, page #). The first half of the paper providing a summary of the reading - A summary provides an overview of the key points. You cannot mention everything the author says within the space you have been provided…don’t try. Provide only the central points of the reading/readings Summaries, like outlines, should be objective. Make no references to yourself. In a summary your opinion doesn’t matter; later, when you analyze and evaluate an argument, you can state your opinion and support it. - A summary is not an abridged copy of the reading…a summary provides some structure for the reader (ex. The author has three main points; the reading provides various interpretations on the notion of justice) The second half providing analysis of the reading. - This will most likely be an exploration of the key points that you have already mentioned. This can take a variety of forms. You can apply these key points to a case/situation from another class. You can explain a flaw in the author’s logic. You can explain whether the religious argument can be made palatable for all without losing anything from the original teaching. Or, you can argue (with support) why you think the authors point is helpful or inadequate. - Writing this part of the paper involves more than simply stating your opinions. You must support your views by presenting arguments in favor of them. You should also try to defend your views against potential criticisms. In developing your position on an issue, keep in mind what an intelligent opponent would say in response. Finally, two or three discussion questions should complete the paper. - There should be three questions that would lead the class in a good discussion surrounding a key theme from the readings. Yes and no questions are not adequate. It should also be clear how the question relates to the text. A. Summary i. Definition According to Adam Smith, a clear distinction exists between sympathy and Prudence. While sympathy is about a quality that makes one consider others in his or her actions, Prudence makes one consider himself or herself above anybody. As such, Prudence, as a virtue, portrays elements of self-interest to a great extent. In Smiths words, prudence is the care of the health, of the fortune, of the rank, and reputation of the individual, the objects upon which his comfort and happiness in this life are supposed principally to depend, is considered as the proper business of that virtue which is called prudence (Smith, VI.I.6 ). The definition brings out an aspect of self-interest by considering it from the lens of the actions of an individual. Therefore, the actions may make one to be referred to as prudent or not. ii. Qualities of a Prudent Person A prudent person engages himself or herself in various activities to qualify to be referred to as so. Firstly, he or she preserves his or her body. Smith suggests that every person has a natural tendency to take care of themselves due to the feeling of significant sympathy with themselves (Smith, VI.II.4). From this point of view, the self is the central point upon which all the aspects of life revolves. Secondly, a prudent individual recognizes the necessity of material goods and employ honor in getting them. Thirdly, a prudent individual seeks, values and prefers preservations to wastes and risks. Also, Prudence manifests in sincerity. A prudent individual works are hard to ensure he or she depends on their income. At the same time, they value sustainable development even if it is slow, making them careful enough to avoid significant risks—also, a prudent individual offers necessary voluntary services only. More importantly, a prudent individual has just a small number of friends. iii. Order of Care and Attention This concept addresses the who part of Prudence. The life of a prudent person revolves around his or her interaction with other people. The order of care and attention helps an individual to identify the people that need their sincere sympathy and those that prudence address. The first circle is the natural desire to ensure that he or she is well-taken care of. The second circle refers to sympathy to others than one lives with. It comes naturally as this category of people is always interacting with the individual. Thirdly, the earliest friendship is a circle that comes immediately after the family. An individual may sympathize with the earliest friends whenever he or she goes beyond self-interest (Smith, VI.II.8). The fourth circle of sympathy is that of colleagues. According to Smith, the workmates within the office setting or even those who engage in the trade may get used to one another to the point of start referring to one another as brothers (Smith, VI. II. 18). Their working together may make them feel towards one another in unique ways. Another circle involves the neighborhood. When he grows up in a community, he or she develops a sense of sympathy for the members and the people living in the same neighborhood. The last circle involves the love of the country. To a great extent, one derives the love for his or her country from loving humanity (Smith, VI.II.29). It is an extension of the love we have for others. Loving the fellow countrymen implies that an individual specially views them, particularly as those that surround his or her loved ones. It manifests in the form of patriotism, particularly for those that serve in the military. More importantly, in the order of care and attention, the levels and significance of sympathy reduce significantly outward the circle. It is stable at the first circle while it becomes weaker outwards. The first circle suggests regular interaction with others. The regularity forms the basis for the desire and pushes to help. It strengthens affection. However, according to Smith, affection is a habitual sympathy (Smith, VI.II.10). Also, the regular interaction begets respect. It is easier for an individual to respect anyone that they see on daily basis under the condition that they have never offended the person (Smith, VI.II.19). However, respect and affection have an exception under some situations. Our good offices can very seldom be extended to any wider society than that of our country (Smith, VI.II.44). An individual is more likely to cultivate goodwill within his or her companions and society. However, when such goodwill calls for sacrifice, its chances of continuing to exist reduces. In summary, sympathy depends on the social distance between an individual and others. In this regard, sympathy is easily attainable to the people who are closer to an individual. He or she offers sympathy to them more comfortably. At the same time, they afford it more cheaply. However, sympathy reduces outward the ring because rules and laws come into play. The laws and regulations may confine one to behave in a certain way; therefore, the behavior may be different and governed by the rules. However, sympathy goes beyond any norm and takes its course depending on the interaction of an individual with other people. B. Analysis The authors point is both helpful and inadequate in understanding the art of living. i. Helpfulness The author adequately defines Prudence. In the definition, he incorporates the essential elements that add up to Prudence. He brings about the idea of care, comfort, and happiness. To begin with care, Prudence is all about cautiousness. An individual that is cautious with various aspects of life can be viewed as prudent. He or she may be cautious with his or her health (both mental and physical), achievements such as reputations and ranks, and destiny in the form of fortune. The second aspect, comfort, make another inevitable part of the definition. The main reason why one may be cautious so much revolves around comfort. An individual may be comfortable when in a good state of health, and when he or she has no other stressing factors. Comfort results from cautiousness in that one can only be comfortable if he or she has everything running as he planned and expected. For example, a prudent student may manifest comfort when he or she engages in earlier preparations for the examinations and other assessments. By more initial preparations, he or she is cautious of time as he or she knows that the previous, the better. Subsequently, he or she becomes comfortable by avoiding all manner of problems that arise from inadequate preparations. The last element is happiness. Both cautiousness and comfort beget happiness. With the example of the prudent student, an individual becomes happy due to meeting a set of goals and objectives due to being prudent. Subsequently, the author outlines the qualities of a prudent person. His effort to do so is not in vain. He intends to help every user of the information to establish and understand the idea of Prudence. His diction, too, is simple to ensure that all the users of the information understand the report without any confusion. Again, all the readers of the information, irrespective of their statuses can easily develop a clear picture of what a prudent person looks like. This attempt is particularly important to help the people that may wish to be prudent but cannot, adopt the right steps towards Prudence. Another strength of the author is that he has been able to analyze Prudence in comparison to other antagonizing factors. He tries to establish a working balance between sympathy and Prudence. As a result, he systematically moves the readers from the idea of self-interest to sympathy. In doing so, he outlines how the change occurs and the factors that may be handy in facilitating it. The author points out that the social distance between an individual and others is the key factor that determines the extent to which the sympathy will exist. He confirms that the first line of sympathy happens within oneself. Other factors come into play in ensuring that the sympathy is extended to other people with whom an individual interacts. Again, he confirms that compassion grows more robust with the frequency of interaction with others. Therefore, he achieves his justification for this phenomenon. ii. Inadequacy Despite trying to be exhaustive in his discussion on Prudence and sympathy, the author leaves some gaps and some questions unanswered. Firstly, the author simply mentions the virtues that would make Prudence a success. He identifies two virtues; charity and courage as perfect combinations for Prudence. According to him, a prudent leader is successful and significant due to the existence of other attributes within the person (Smith, VI.I.16). It would have been better to explain how the combination works. The author ought to have stated that charity works well with Prudence because it reinforces the latter with certain aspects. Additionally, he ought to have outlined the reason for such combinations as well as the disadvantages. Such an effort will go beyond just mentioning and will qualify the claim as useful. Prudence, in short, when directed merely to the care of the health, of the fortune, and the rank and reputation of the individual, though it is regarded as a most respectable and even, in some degree, as an amiable and agreeable quality, yet it never is considered as one, either of the most endearing, or of the most ennobling of the virtues. It commands certain cold esteem but seems not entitled to any very ardent love or admiration (Smith, VI.I.15). In this definition, it is evident that Prudence is significantly respectable. However, the description downplays the greatness of Prudence. A prudent person is respectable among the people and the members of a given society, but greatness may miss. Another gap in the work is that Smith does not quote the Bible verses to authenticate his claims. Universal happiness is not under the power of persons; it is the power of God and not man (Smith, VI.II.49). This statement is more of a claim. However, if the author wrote it and justified it with a Bible verse, it would have had more weight. C. Questions i. What makes a combination of Charity and Prudence better? ii. How are courage and prudence make a genuinely excellent person? iii. Is Prudence self-interest or caution? References Kleer, R. A. (1995). Final Causes in Adam Smiths Theory of Moral Sentiments. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33(2), 275-300. Smith, A. (1822). The theory of moral sentiments (Vol. 1). J. Richardson. Smith, A. (2010). The theory of moral sentiments. Penguin. ... Purchase answer to see full attachment