• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How might a moral relativist respond to the claim that people should always tell the truth? Assess the strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics.

Extracts from this document...


A. How might a moral relativist respond to the claim that people should always tell the truth? B. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics. (A) To tell the truth is morally right, but telling a lie can also be morally right. Can the contradictions both be justified if the motive is love? Can we lie if the intention is love, or by always telling the truth are we "better people"? Some relativists claim that as long as the intention is love, then an action is morally right. In a relationship, when the crucial moment arrives and your partner turns to you and says, "Do you love me?", how best do you respond? Morally, can you justify lying to someone about love? The law of love says that you can not refrain from action. If refrain denies you from following a certain course, then can lying be accepted? Dependant upon whether you do love the person or not, the best approach to take will be a matter of your personal opinion and beliefs. Fletcher would deal with a situation relative to love. Relativism, "relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative". If the absolute is such that, you should tell the truth because it is the loving thing to do, then relativism would say that, maybe saying "Yes, I do love you", may be justifiable, but it may also cause the most pain in the long run. ...read more.


Most situations can be rationalised as morally right, (if you're of the belief of subjectivism - everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs), as long as a person is of a high enough intellect. Lying can equally be justified by those who are of low and of high intellect, as a full understanding and comprehension of the consequences and detriment of certain actions is understood on different levels. Those who have greater understanding may therefore see the lie as morally wrong. This would be due to the fact that they have a different insight into the situation. Different people have different views upon moral attitudes, and most believe they're more than entitled to their opinion. Cultures will rationalise situations with different theories and attitudes, and as a result of this, lying in one culture can be morally right, whereas in another it will be morally wrong. Society will nurture people into certain beliefs and understandings, and consequently the moral justification surrounding lies will always differ from society to society. (B) Living in the modern world, we are lead to believe that social tolerance is a norm. It would be nice for this to be the reality; however, we all know it is an unachievable dream. The subjectivist creates a lifestyle which everyone aspires to but society denies us of. ...read more.


Maybe love is the greatest factor, but this is highly disputed between the theorists. The "love" theory: I'm sure many people would like to believe that if the motive, intention or even the outcome is love, then lying is morally acceptable, but for many the truth may not be so clear cut. Once again, the idea is good in theory, but the practice may not be so realistic. Telling the absolute truth to everyone you meet seems like an ideal way to live; never having to cover up lies with more lies. Minimally distorting the truth, ("white lies"), is an excepted custom these days. Lying is an accepted way of life for two fundamental reasons: 1. To provide gain and 2. To avoid pain. However, the problem facing people today is the fact that lies are easily exposed by our body language, and most people's natural feeling of guilt. So, are we really gaining or avoiding anything, if the truth is bound to surface sooner or later? Truth be told, the world may be a better place if the world was to be lie less, but we may all believing in a perpetual land of unhappiness. At present however, it seems that most people are happy to live in an oblivious state; a happy state, even if they are living a lie. Angela Cotton 12RFT AS Religious Studies ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Explain what is meant by Moral Relativism. Assess the strengths the weaknesses of situations ...

    They would believe that we should not get involved in others countries affairs as we have no right to force our opinions on other cultures. Therefore a moral relativist would be against the war on Iraq. J.L. Mackie says that moral beliefs don't shape our society, society shapes our moral beliefs.

  2. Analyse and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of natural moral law as a definitive ...

    The Constitution of the Roman Catholic Church, Gaudium et Spes, maintains that 'the moral aspect of any procedure is influenced by intentions and motives but also objective standards, based on the nature of the human person and his acts'. Kelly argues for a morality based on the human person as

  1. What is Natural Moral Law? What are the strengths and weaknesses of NML?

    This belief combined with Christian concepts begins to mean that God bought everything into existence for a reason. He then goes on to say that something is only 'good' if it does its job properly. For example, a good knife cuts.

  2. Religious Studies - Ethics: Natural Moral Law

    Natural Law's absolutist stance states that certain actions, such as the abuse of the innocent, will always be wrong and therefore is immune to modern flexible morality or cultural relativism. This means that Natural Law upholds values such as human rights, for example, it is never right to torture someone to get information.

  1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Natural Law.

    if it is done in order to attract praise then there is a bad intention. The theory of natural law can applied to various situations. However, it is important to clarify that the concept of this theory is primarily concerned with the 'act' and does not take into account the consequences or situations (such as Utilitarianism).

  2. The key difference between someone using counselling skills and a qualified and trained counsellor ...

    Boundaries covered in the contract are: o Time, frequency and duration of sessions o Communication o Cancellation o Fees o Confidentiality o Process and outcomes o Questions Boundaries not covered in the contract are outlined in the BACP Ethical Framework and cover: o Sexual Relations o Abuse of Trust o

  1. `Always tell the truth and Always keep your promises' Kant's Categorical Imperative.

    Autonomous Will: An autonomous will, then, is one which acts freely and rationally, without any compulsion from another, or provoked by any desire within. The person who cultivates the autonomous will is one who willingly and dutifully abides by the moral law.

  2. Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. 'Relativist theories give no convincing reason ...

    This means that a relativist theory of morality is subjective: it may change depending on personal opinions and therefore could also be biased. Descriptive relativism states that in different societies, across different times, people have believed different things about what is morally right.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work