—代写Absolutism Vs Relativism 代写

  • 100%原创包过,高质代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信：120591129

    • ——代写Absolutism Vs Relativism  代写
    —Absolutism Vs Relativism  
    —Consequentialism is an absolutist position
    —Deontology is an absolutist position
    —Ethical Relativism is the thesis that attributions of ethical/moral rightness/wrongness are not absolute but always relative to a particular culture.
    —Differences in ethical/moral values across cultures
    —The claims of the Ethical/Moral Relativist may include the following:
    —Different societies have different moral codes.
    —There is no objective ethical/moral standard that can be used to judge one society better than another
    —The ethical/moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
    —Differences across cultures (cont)
    —There is no “universal truth” in ethics – that is there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
    —The ethical/moral code of a society determines what is ethically/morally right/wrong in that society.
    —It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples.  We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.
    —Different societies have different cultural practices.
    —eskimo practice of leaving elderly relatives or new born infants to die in the snow (This is unacceptable in our society)
    —apache practice of punishing infants for crying during the night  (Again this is not acceptable in our society)
    —The central claim of cultural relativism
    —Cultural Relativism as an ethical theory (that is a theory about the nature of morality) goes beyond the claim that there may be different cultural mores in different societies.
    —Cultural Relativists argue from the fact that different cultures have different mores (or moral codes) to a conclusion about the nature of morality.
    —The Cultural Differences Argument
    —eskimos see nothing ethically/morally wrong with infanticide whereas we in Australia believe it is immoral.
    —Maybe one culture is right (and the other wrong!)
    —The fact that some primitive cultures believe that the earth is flat, whereas we believe that it is round does not establish that there is no objective truth in Geography.
    —This argument does not show that Cultural Relativism is false, but it does establish that the cultural differences argument is not successful.
    —The consequences of accepting Cultural Relativism
    —We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are ethically/morally inferior to our own.
    —Anything goes (so long as it has cultural acceptance)
    ◦broad-based anti-semitism eg Nazi Germany
    ◦beheading for adultry in Moslem countries
    ◦female “circumcision” in some African countries
    ◦slavery (in cultures of the past)
    —Consequences (cont) 
    —We could decide whether actions are ethically/morally right/wrong by simply consulting the standards of our own society.
    —If a society genuinely accepts
    ◦ slavery
    ◦Antisemitism
    ◦Apartheid
        then such practices are ethically/morally right   within that society.
    —Consequences (cont)
    —The idea of ethical moral progress is undermined.
    ◦According to ethical relativism the ideals of a society cannot be challenged from a moral/ethical perspective.
    ◦Those ideals are by definition correct.
    –If a society accepts the use of child labour in factories/mines then that practice is morally justified.
    –Similarly with racial segregation.
    ◦This leaves no place for reformers like the Webbs and Martin Luther King who challenged the ethical/moral standards of their contemporaries.
    —Diversity of values?
    —Is there really as much disagreement among societies about ethical/moral values as cultural relativists believe?
    —The answer is almost certainly not.
    —Many disagreements that appear to be about values are in fact disagreements about other things.
    —Eskimos value human life – its just that the conditions under which they live are different from, and much tougher than, those under which we live.
    —What is really going on? 
    —maybe all we have are situations where the consequences of actions are very different and so we choose differently on that basis.
    —This takes us back to a consequentialist (and objectivist) picture of morality.
    —Core ethical values 
    —We would expect that there will be some moral values that all societies have in common, namely those necessary for the existence of societies
    ◦protection of infants
    ◦prohibition on murder
    ◦prohibition on lying
    —We would expect the core prohibitions to remain constant even though as we move from society to society the more peripheral exceptions to these rules may vary – infanticide may be permissible in very harsh environments (eg the eskimos)
    —A more sophisticated relativism
    —Why do we 
    —According to this version of cultural relativism there will be certain key values common to all cultures. 
    —Other less fundamental values may be ordered differently by different cultures.
    Eg the west gives primacy to the individual, the east to family
    —Is sophisticated relativism really relativism?
    —Maybe we have situations where consequences differ and so we choose differently on that basis.
    —There does not seem to be anything that the consequentialist cannot explain using his objectivist (consequentialist) framework
    —Multinational Corporations 
    —Is it sufficient for the multinational to obey the laws of the host country?
    —Is it necessary for the multinational to obey the laws of the home country?
    —Is some other ethical standard appropriate?
    —Multinationals (cont)—代写Absolutism Vs Relativism  代写
    —Multinational Corporations operating in third world countries face choices that often have serious ethical implications.
    ◦Consider Shell’s operations in Nigeria where there are very low environmental standards required by the Nigerian Government.
    ◦BHP and Ok Tedi in New Guinea
    ◦Nestle marketing baby formula in third world countries
    ◦Nike using child labour to make runners
    ◦The Bhopal disaster in India
    —Relativism and Multinationals
    —Multinationals often justify their behaviour by appealing to relativist arguments
    ◦How does the multinational justify observing lower environmental standards in third world countries?
    ◦How does the multinational justify lower health and safety standards in third world countries?
    ◦How does the multinational justify lower wages for local employees in third world countries?
    —
    —Relativism and Multinationals (cont)
    —Multinationals justify behaving in these ways by one (or more) of the following arguments
    ◦That they are doing nothing against the local law
    ◦That they cannot be expected to do more than the local law requires
    ◦That the country in which they are operating is still better off than if the multinational were not doing business there
    ◦
    —Relativism and Multinationals (cont)
    —The third of these arguments offers a consequentialist justification.
    —Arguments one and two offer relativist justifications
    —But we have already argued that naïve ethical relativism is fatally flawed.
    —A more sophisticated ethical relativism seems indistinguishable from consequentialism
    —
    —
    —Two views of multinational obligation
    —
    —Bowie, Relativism and the Moral Obligations of Multinational Corporations (in Beauchamp Bowie and Arnold)
    —Arnold, The human rights obligations of multinational corporations (in Beauchamp Bowie and Arnold


    —Bowie’s Argument
    —Bowie argues against naïve Cultural Relativism – he argues that it is a view that cannot be defended.
    —he argues that multinationals require stability to do business, and that commonly accepted moral rules are necessary for stability.
    —Multinationals are for Bowie committed to a moral minimum of the kind we have just discussed, the kinds of rules necessary for the existence of stable societies - rules that prohibit murder, rape and theft.
    –Contribute to the economic, social and environmental progress of the countries within which they operate (1)
    –Respect the human rights of those affected by their activities (2)
    –Encourage local capacity building (3)
    –Encourage human capital formation (4)
    –Refrain from seeking exemptions from the regulatory framework in respect of
    –Environment, Health, Safety, Labour, Taxation (5)
    –Refrain from improper involvement in local political activities (11)
    —Employment and Industrial Relations
    —MNCs should respect the right of employees to be represented by trade unions. (1a)
    —Contribute to the effective abolition of child labour. (1b)
    —Contribute to the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour. (1c)
    —Environment
    —Not use the lack of full scientific certainly as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent or minimise damage to the environment. (4)
    —Contribute to the development of environmentally meaningful and economically efficient public policy. (8)
    —Taxation
    —MNC’s should contribute to the public finances of host countries by making timely payment of their tax liabilities.
     
    —Limitations of the OECD guidelines
    —The guidelines are recommendations by governments to MNCs.  Their observance is voluntary and not legally enforcable. Concepts and Principles(1)
    —Governments have the right to prescribe the conditions under which MNC’s operate within their jurisdictions subject to international law. Concepts and Principles(7)
    —代写Absolutism Vs Relativism  代写
    —