Ethical_Relativism

The main potential critique of this stance will be cultural ethical and moral relativism to Infanticide is morally right within certain contexts. In this paper I will show why women have ethical right to the option of abortion. Abortion has been one of the most gravely debated issues. There are pro-lifers who resort to violence by attacks on doctors and the bombing of clinics in order to save what they think are unborn human lives. Infanticide is subject that most people feel passionate about. There are several ethical components of the abortion debate that help form ones opinion on whether or not abortion is moral. First we should know what is Infanticide' Infanticide it the act of killing a new born baby or and infant. Pro-life activist says that the fetus has a right to life from its initial conception, because they consider it to be a person of moral status equal to that of all other human beings. For a conservative, abortion is almost never morally permissible, whether it is an early abortion in the first trimester, or a late abortion in the third trimester. The only circumstances in which activists might permit an abortion as morally permissible are in the situations of a rape or incest. Abortion has been practiced widely in every society for many reasons including famine, war, poverty, overpopulation, or simply because a woman felt she was not ready for a child Ethical relativism believes that there is no independent, objective morality, but only the many different varied moralities as they appear in all their multiple forms, in different times and places. There is no essential morality, according to ethical relativism; there are only the multi various norms of moralities in all the different eras and cultures around the world. People are protected by ethics and by law since they are able to feel. Many actions are considered immoral because they cause innocent people to feel pain. If an object cannot feel, then it will not feel pain if damaged, and the treatment of the object is chosen to benefit those who feel. But then we have missionaries who say otherwise. Mother Teresa is the founder and mother superior of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity, which provides services to needy people around the world. The following viewpoint is excerpted from a speech she gave at a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 1994. Mother Teresa argues that those who choose abortion are making a selfish choice. Abortion destroys one's ability to love, she contends, because people who choose abortion do so to avoid the hurt that unselfish love of their children would require. (Nation prayer breakfast) (n.d) Here we have mother Teresa Deontological ethics on abortion, Deontological ethical are ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. So a rape victim may have the following view is support of abortion. Rape is one of the many reasons woman choose to end their pregnancies. Many feel guilty about ending a life, but they know deep down how badly they would treat the child. These women hate their rapist and feel that they would hate the child because of the crime of the rapist. Pro-life activists say that abortion is murder and is in defiance of God. Would God want a Mother to hate her child or do her child harm' Answer: you say child, mean someone who was plan out of love, then no, but in this case where they are in the first stage of pregnancy and by a rapist I would thing that God would understand and forgive. My question to you where was God when this happen' Why did he allow this to happen' They would also question whether this child would be like its father (a rapist). When thinking about the genes of the father and that the child would have the same criminal genes, raising someone with one known gene is not good thing, without knowing all the genes that this rapist have implanted in this child. Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. To support this definition is a paragraph from Philosophical Issue that is good for this definition. In a rural village 50 miles east of Calcutta, a mother kills her newborn baby girl without threat of scorn, punishment, or criticism of her morality from her community. Indeed, the practice of infanticide is commonplace in poverty-stricken regions of India, China, and other nations. Many outside observers of this culture would label this act murder and condemn the woman as an immoral person deserving penalization. The theory of moral relativism, however, holds that the mother has committed no violation because she was acting in accord with the societal standards of her culture. Moral relativism is a form of conventionalism, which explicitly states that "an act is morally right if and only if it is permitted by the conventions of its society". Therefore, there are no universally morally obligatory acts and all morality is defined by one's environment. This theory has several advantages and disadvantages, and I propose a modification of moral relativism which resolves the difficulties while retaining the strengths of the theory. (Philosophical issue moral relativism)(n.d.) Moral objectivism is the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion. One general point about moral objectivism is that the position does not dictate that any specific moral truths exist, nor does it imply that any or all moral truths are known. (Philosophy index)(n.d.) so is it fair that a pro-life woman ranted and raved that killing is wrong, and to prove her point, she shot a doctor dead because he performed an abortion. In other words, she felt that a fetus was more important than a living, breathing human being. Teleological ethics, theory of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. It is wrong for a woman to be forced to give birth to a baby she cannot afford' Yes it would be wrong, even and activist would say the same if ask a question about this, like is it good to kill to eliminate poverty' They would give and answer something like; No, I would never think about killing the poor. I would advocate abortion to prevent them from becoming poor people in the first place. So even an advocate flip, flop about abortion in some context. Categorical Imperative is: Act only on those maxims rules that you would, at some point of time, will become a universal law of nature. Categorical Imperative is done in two stages Step one is asking this question, “Can I picture a world functioning where everyone did this all the time in cases of extreme poverty and overpopulation'” Answer: Yes, taking the view of Family Planning the outcomes of this method include: “reduction of poverty, [reduction of] maternal and child mortality; empowerment of women by lightening the burden of excessive childbearing; and enhancement of environmental sustainability by stabilizing the population of the planet” (Cleland, Bernstein, Ezeh, Faundes, Glasier, Innis) (2006) Question two: “Would it be consistent for me to will this to become a universal law of nature'” Answer: Yes, for it would help in a world of quickly depleting resources, excessive poverty, and overpopulation, family planning interventions decrease fertility and reduce births – a method which has shown to be both cost-effective and successful as a public health intervention to decrease population growth (Prata, 2007). Teleological ethics, theory of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. From the definition of teleological ethics I would think one would say that the end would be for the greater good, for what is desire is not to be in poverty and it is ones obligation to work toward removing oneself from the situation. The article states that, “Families view many of these children as illegitimate in a culture that condemns those born outside of marriage” (Sayah, 2011). Does this belief justify infanticide' Be sure to include how this belief relates to cultural relativism and moral objectivism. No this belief does not justify infanticide. Infanticide can happen universally if there is extreme poverty and overpopulation. These children did not ask to be born just to be call illegitimate. Infanticide in a cultural relativism setting does not support such a view, from cultural relativism in this case does not apply. For moral objectivism would make the above statement true for moral truths exist independently from opinion. Conclusions: As seen from above, Infanticide is an asset to public health and to women everywhere. The ability to space, regulate, and control fertility is empowering and necessary for women, especially women who rape and or, are unable to afford or care for children. Infanticide to this writer is the same as abortion. There are reasons that Infanticide is needed to be done and there will always be a debate on legal and moral ethics about Infanticide.