Relativism is frequently associated with conventionalism. Gilbert Harman's moral philosophy (1996) is a particularly evident example, according to which moral truths emerge from social norm. Conventions differ between civilizations. Infanticide may be considered awful in one community, yet normal and essential in another. There is no fundamental morality that applies across cultures.
Conventionalism is the view that there are objective standards or norms external to individuals that guide their behavior. Thus, it differs from subjectivism, which holds that only one's perceptions determine what acts are right or wrong; normative theories, which say that what is right is whatever society decides it is; and rationalism, which claims that humans can reach consensus on any issue by reasoning together.
Normative theories include utilitarianism, deontology, and contractualism. Utilitarian theories hold that an act is right if and only if it produces more good than harm. Deontological theories assert that an act is right or wrong regardless of its consequences. Contractual theories claim that individuals enter into social relationships with the agreement that certain actions will be done or not done. What is right or wrong depends on how you contract with others.
In addition to these categories, some philosophers have proposed further divisions within the category of normative theories.
A naturalistic ethical theory is John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism, which holds that conduct is morally good if it tends to cause happiness (or pleasure, broadly understood) and morally wrong if it fails to produce happiness or tends to produce sadness or...
...well you get the picture. Now, this seems like a fairly easy concept to understand but in fact many philosophers have been very critical of utilitarianism because they think it's not enough of a guide for actual human behavior. They argue that we want more than just happiness and bad things happen all the time because people don't always act in accordance with what would maximize overall utility. For example, someone may suffer pain even though doing so wouldn't change any relevant facts about their situation. Or they may make sacrifices for others without expecting anything in return-again, these actions aren't always logical consequences of taking a broad view of utility.
However, although they're not perfect, naturalists can still take advantage of the results of such actions by saying that people are acting according to principles that match up with how things actually are-that is, there are facts about human nature that explain why people do the things they do. For example, if someone suffers pain because it produces some kind of feeling that makes them feel better in the long run, then we can say that they're acting according to a principle of self-preservation.
"Conventional refers to someone or anything that is universally recognized or tied to a convention." A bride wearing white on her wedding day is an illustration of tradition. The use of pesticides when cultivating fruits and vegetables is an example of conventional.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, traditional means "based on a previous experience or instance; empirical" and "following established rules or practices." A traditional marriage ceremony includes vows taken before a religious leader or judge. Wedding cakes are an indication of tradition because they follow a specific design and contain a variety of flavors for the couple to choose from.
People have been marrying outside of weddings for many years now. This practice is called "alternative marriage" or "unconventional marriage." It can also be referred to as "free marriage" or "open marriage." Some couples who marry outside of weddings do so because one or both parties prefer this type of marriage arrangement. Some couples may also choose to marry outside of weddings to demonstrate their commitment to each other without any expectations of what happens next. No one but the couple knows them better than they do themselves.
There are many variations of unconventional marriages. What these couples have in common is that they don't feel the need to follow a particular set of rules when getting married.
The polar opposite of rightness in concept or practice. Baseness, deception, immorality, and badness are all opposites of rightness.
Right and wrong are terms used to describe an action's consequences. Thus, the opposite of right is wrong, and the opposite of wrong is right.
Actions can be categorized as either right or wrong independent of any particular person or situation. Therefore, the opposite of right is not wrong, but rather it is right. Wrong actions will not produce good results; however, right actions may lead to bad results. For example, if I push you, we both know that will lead to a wrong outcome; however, if I help someone in need, then this action is right even though it may lead to negative consequences.
It is important to understand that while right and wrong can be described independently of any particular person or situation, they cannot be applied independently of anyone or anything. Right and wrong are terms used to describe actions; therefore, they cannot exist without describing some sort of activity. Someone must be doing the acting to determine if an action was right or wrong. If no one were to judge actions, there would be no way to learn from past mistakes or appreciate good deeds.
Traditional ethical theories, in their opinion, are limited because of the following reasons: they involve a high level of abstraction from reality; the real world is complex, and such a "principled" approach to resolving day-to-day dilemmas about behavior is unhelpful and ignores decision-makers' real-world context. Modern theorists have responded to these criticisms by developing more flexible accounts that better match people's actual behavior.
Abstraction is an important feature of any theoretical framework since it allows for wide-ranging discussion and exploration of different situations or cases while still maintaining some degree of generalization. Abstraction is also useful in terms of its ability to make general principles that can be applied to many different cases. However, abstraction comes at a cost: it makes analysis and understanding of specific cases difficult if not impossible. For example, it would be difficult to understand how it is possible to violate another person's rights without violating one's own rights as opposed to merely acting inconsistently with those rights.
Modern theorists have responded to the criticism that traditional theories involve a high level of abstraction by developing more concrete accounts of right and wrong action. These theories tend to focus on particular types of actions (e.g., specific acts or omissions) rather than discussing abstract principles that apply in all cases. They also include more detailed discussions of contextual factors that may influence what action is taken in certain situations. For example, consider the classic account of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law.