Assess the case against Moral Elitism Essay

deterrent example Elitist believe in a metaphysical carry there atomic number 18 deterrent example facts and an epistemic claim we have access to them. According to moral relativism, there are no moral principles or set objectively real and applicable to everyone rather, whats right/ defile and good/bad essentially depends on unmarried preference or culture, and this varies from person to person or group to group. in that respect is not in effect(p) one moral fact only if instead there are millions and we access them be research. thither are two antithetic forms of moral elitism one is cultural relativism which based on societies and the other is in the individualistic form, moral subjectivism.Moral relativism seems tolerant (you do your thing and Ill do mine), but is it reasonable to believe? We should think not. First, lets cheek at it in its group or cultural form, cultural relativism. According to cultural relativism, ethics essentially depend on ones culture or tribe . That is, CR says action X is right or good if the social club says X is right or good, and X is misemploy or bad if the society says X is reproach or bad. Action X whitethorn be right in one culture but wrong in another.Our culture whitethorn thrust that apartheid is wrong, but another culture may be o.k. with apartheid, because of a difference in the history of interracial relations. On cultural relativism, then, morality is wholly a matter of cultural invention, i.e. social construction and because such circumstances vary from group to group, so do the constructed moralities. Thus, we shouldnt impose our cultures moral values on others, and others shouldnt push theirs on us. There are no better or worse societies, they are secure merely different and so one society cannot judge another. Instead we should be non judgemental and celebrate diversity.Cultural relativism effectives good, but is it sound? Lets assume that cultural relativism is true, this would be very problema tic. The biggest problem for this argument is govern antecedent by G.E Moores Open Question. He suggests that the relativists have mis-defined morality, it makes to sense to ask whether society approve of something or it, but does this make it automatically good? This ends up giving support to obviously fiendish regimes and evil cultural practices. For example it becomes impossible to criticize the Nazis. If Nazi culture says that genocide is right, then, for Nazi Germany, genocide is right. It was just their culture, after all. But we know that we can and should condemn such regimes and practices.There is besides the admonition put forward by Objectivists who believe in moral development, where sometimes we have to go against the popular view, we essential to be able to compare different societies. For example surely the German society now is ofttimes better than how it was like with all the racism involved when Hitler was in power. Objectivists believe that societies are a power structure where some are in fact better than others whereas cultural relativism believes in breadth where all societies are equal, but surely their tolerance goes too far? If cultural relativism is true, then internal cultural crystalise is disabled. What the culture says is right is right, so its not possible for ones culture to be mistaken let alone reformed. Yes, one can critique acts according to cultural standards, but its not possible to criticize ones own cultural standards.However they do fig out for example Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, they were all trying to give another standard for example Martin Luther King was trying to apply the standard of equality. The existence of cultural reformers is a fact, and this fact counts against cultural relativism. Cultural relativism also self-refutes. If CR is true, it allows for the porta of a society having a non-relative or absolute morality. That is, on cultural relativism a society could hold that cultural relat ivism is false, and they would say that this morality is true. So, if cultural relativism, then it is also not true. This is a serious transparent problem. There is also the problem of which culture? The one youre born into or the one you straightway occupy? When asking someone what cultural groups they belong in they will struggle as they have loads, for example being a student, a Muslim etc.Now lets look at moral subjectivism. According to moral subjectivism ethics are merely a matter of individual preference. That is, to say action X is right or good if I like X, and X is wrong or bad if I dont like X. Depending on our chanceings, action X may be right for you but wrong for me. You may not like abortion, but I may be okay with abortion, if my feelings are not as troubled by it as yours are. Morality, then, is basically a matter of taste, and tastes vary. People should make out our own morals and have freedom, not simply just concur our parents, society or religion. They are relative to the individual and so are presented through our personal feelings. Feelings are the main index and guide to show what morals we should follow.However this could result in problems as intra-personal criticism is lost. If moral subjectivism is true, whatever we feel is right is right. In other words, we can never be wrong morally and we cannot criticize ourselves (all we can be is true to our feelings). This does not destroy subjectivism but it serves as a red flag against IR, because our pre-theoretic experience of morality is that we sometimes make moral mistakes, in spite of our feelings. We also cannot criticize others. We cant truly morally condemn the behaviour of, say, Jack the Ripper clearly desire killing women the feelings of a person justified their actions.In other words, according to subjectivism Who are we to judge them? There is also the problem of how are our feeling a reliable guide to right and wrong? sometimes we can misjudge and feelings can cloud our judgement, for example someone with a bad temper powerfulness kill someone by accident due to their anger issues. Also reason can sometimes change our feelings, for example if I am on a diet but I feel like I really want a chocolate ice cream, reasoning about this would convert me not to follow my feelings and opt to eat something healthy instead.In conclusion we have seen the two types of moral elitism. Both are quite sophisticated and a lot more open minded. Surely our feelings matte sometimes when it comes to moral decisions. There cannot be just set moral facts as how would everyone even stand for about what they are. When trying to decide what is right and wrong, everyone seems to disagree so surely our feelings and following our own society would lead to our moral decisions.However many problems arise logically from moral elitism as sometimes we cannot choose our own morals instead we are a passive recipient where morals impose themselves on us. Following our society or fee lings do not necessarily lead us to what is right or wrong and so its reasonable to conclude that individual moral relativism is flawedlogically, factually, and morally as following it will lead to wrong situations where wrong things will be condoned. Therefore moral elitism should be rejected.