Morality Case

Rachels believes that each society defines the "right" and "wrong" of morality with reference to their respective customs. As each society is unique, they each have their own set of practices and belief that is passed down from generation to generation. Certainly, there might be some similarities but a comparison between societies should never be made as the differences far outweigh the similarities. Individuals from one society have their own perspective and might find the practices of another to be improper. This could ultimately lead them into believing theirs to be superior.

However, not all would agree with the theory of relativism and those who oppose it are based on a number of solid reasons. First, the ease of approval given based on the current ethical view clearly shows the ignorance of the theory. Taking an example given by Rachels, it is understandable that individuals may have their own say on the subject of the issues of homosexuality. It is also inevitable that some have no opinion with regards to the issue even to the extent of conforming to the majority while others have no solid evidence to support their judgment. Yet, the population deems that the majority is always right. Must it always be the case? Looking at nonhuman treatment to animals, it is logical that the majority opposes the idea. What if the contrary occurs whereby the majority supports the idea of animal cruelty? In this particular context, the views of the minority would be more adequate.

Rachels correlated that there was another major concern in relativism as highlighted by Socrates. Some practices are unique to each society and it is pointless to insist superiority.

...