Best of Best (Ethics Paper)

Discussion Board Examples Each of the following posts have been copied verbatim, this includes all references and errors. I am attempting to give you some guidance for how your weekly discussion responses should look, as well as what a typically bad discussion response. Please review these examples, and the weekly assignment instructions, before you submit any work this course. Initial Discussion Post – Good Response Score 5/5 Rachels describes Cultural Relativism as “the norms of a culture reign supreme within the bounds of the culture itself” (Rachels, 17). It is a way for us to look at other cultures’ beliefs and codes without judgment to better understand them. It also allows us attempt to look at our own culture, beliefs, and codes, and understand that although we find what we do morally right or wrong, not every culture may agree. Rachels does state however, “…that there are some moral rules that all societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary for society to exist” (Rachels, 23). Trust and safety are among those rules that societies must acknowledge. Without them, they wouldn’t be able to function as a group.

While I don’t think Rachels is 100% for cultural relativism, I believe he leans more to the side of accepting the theory. It allows us analyze what we believe to be morally right or wrong, and creates a wide variety of cultures in the world which we can learn from. I agree with Rachels’ interest in being partially open to the cultural relativism concept. It would create a more peaceful world if more people were tolerant of other’s practices.

Westboro Baptist Church is a church known for it’s extreme hatred of the LGBT community. In response to the mass shooting that occurred in an LGBT Orlando nightclub, the group picketed with signs saying “God sent the shooter” and “God still hates fags”. While I am completely against this kind of hatred, it is a good example of cultural relativism. The church members believe what they’re doing is right according to their religion and what they were taught. They see nothing morally wrong with their signs and opinions on the shooting because that’s what they’ve always believed. According to the cultural relativism theory, we should acknowledge this when we attempt to judge their actions. This reinforces Rachels stance on cultural relativism.

References: Rachels, James, James Rachels, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy: 7th Revised Edition. London: Mcgraw Hill Higher Education, 2012. Print.

Villarreal, Yezmin. "Westboro Sings 'Shooters Keep Comin' Around' as Bodies Still in Club." Advocate. N.p., 2016. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.

Response #1 I think we have laws in place, and as long as they technically are abiding by these laws, it will protect their right to freedom of speech. I personally believe what they say and do to be morally wrong because it is unrightfully hateful towards other people. While I was at school at A&M, there was a funeral nearby for a fallen soldier and we heard that WBC planned to picket at it. We created a facebook event and invited hundreds of students and community members to peacefully block any protesters from picketing by creating a human wall. There have been other communities who have been successful at the same type of blockade and I feel this is the only way to keep the beliefs of WBC away from others who don't feel the same.

I believe this is a problem with fully accepting cultural relativism and not just a part of it. As long as intolerance is nonviolent, there are laws in place to allow them their right to hate and let it be known. But when violence towards others happens, I don't believe it is morally right to tolerate that form of intolerance.

Response #2 Hi Brooke and Amber!

I think cultural relativism is okay to a small extent. I think it benefits us to be tolerant of SOME different beliefs, because that lets us understand other cultures. I agree with Amber in that I am not tolerant to violent customs such as the "honor killing" going on in Pakistan. I don't find it morally okay to end another person's life on those terms. I am happy to see there is a progressive group trying to steer the country away from these types of customs.

Response #3 It has always interested me in how other cultures view certain animals and either consume, worship, or have them as pets. I think this is a part of cultural relativism that Rachels meant for us to be a little more open to understanding why cultures do certain things. Like the others have posted, here in the U.S. we see dogs as companions so it is hard for me to imagine eating one but I can imagine in times of extreme hunger, one can eat just about anything. I'm' curious, did you ever try it??

Great post! Thanks for sharing

Initial Discussion Post - Bad Response Score 1/5 If i was in this trolley car and I had to choose between hitting my mother or 5 random strangers, i would have to choose to hit my mother instead of the 5 strangers. Due to the fact that with utilitarianism, maximize happiness is the goal, not just for you, but for everybody else around you. So instead of me being selfish, i have to look at the bigger picture and go with the less people dying as possible, because that is maximizing the happiness Mills is talking about.

But according to Bernard Williams it would be more morally right to save your mother. Due to the fact that utilitarianism, has a blurry distinction between what is morally right and what is not. Moral decisions preserve our integrity according to Williams. Even though saving the most people would be right in Mills' view, it may not be the most morally right. Williams believes doing what we think is morally right, preserves integrity, so by saving your mom who you have an emotional connection with is far more moral, than saving 5 random strangers.

Response #1 I completely agree with you that you should make decisions based on what you think is right in your gut, not thinking about the consequences of how other people may feel. You are the only person that knows what is right or wrong in your eyes.

Response #2 I agree with your post. Between the two views, there really is no right or wrong decision. You can save your loved one because you have that connection and it would feel morally right to you. Or you can save the 5 strangers because it maximizes happiness according to the utilitarianism way. But i do agree that way does lessen the integrity in a person

Response #3 I agree, like i said in a previous post. There really is no right or wrong decision. Either way there is some ethical point why you chose that decision. In addition, i belive your upbringing does play a role in decision making, everybody is different, and everybody has their own logic to everything