A common debate in ethics is universalism versus relativism of ethics and moral codes.  A frequently asked question is “Does a universal moral code exist regardless of an individual’s culture?”, is if  a universal moral code exists regardless of an individual’s culture.  As organizations are becoming increasingly global,  and understanding of universalism versus relativism of culture ethics is important.

· Compare and contrast universalism and relativism.

· Evaluate how universalism and relativism affect global social corporate responsibility.

Your response must be a minimum of 300 words.

Please use at least one scholarly or credible source in your discussion.

· The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources  table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.

Guided Response: Review several of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies early during the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in the discussion.

Your responses to peers must be a minimum of 150 words.

Reply to Jeffrey:

· Compare and contrast universalism and relativism.

Moral universalism is the belief that the same rules or system of ethics apply to all cultures universally. In other words, the same ethics apply universally and do not change regardless of culture, religion, nationality, or race. Ethical universalism views the world in an idealistic way.

Moral relativism is the belief that differences in moral judgments will be found in different cultures and across different people. It also believes that there may be objective differences between right and wrong, nobody is right or wrong, and that differences in behavior should be tolerated. Ethical relativism views the world in a more realistic way by understanding that different cultures can view the same actions differently.

Evaluate how universalism and relativism affect global social corporate responsibility.

Trebilcock (2016) wrote a paper that traced the evolution in thinking over universal themes such as universalism and its rise and fall. His paper primarily focused on law and development. However, it can also be applied to global social corporate responsibility. He argued that universalism prevailed during post-war eras up until the 1990’s when it produced disappointing outcomes. Universalism came to recognize that there is no general blueprint that can be used across all countries; especially developing countries. Trebilcock argued that while it’s a good to reject universalism, there are also some dangers in succumbing to an extreme form of relativism.

More recently, it has come to be widely recognized that a country’s specific features will shape what is desirable and feasible. Some of these factors include: the country’s history, geography, culture, demographics, economic structure, religion(s), politics, and ethnic composition. Different cultures and people create their own moral recommendations. Some argue that there is no way to prove that one is morally preferable over another and that one set cannot be universally used. Cultural relativism is the understanding that different cultures have different values and that they cannot be dismissed as inferior or wrong.

In regards to global social corporate responsibility, bribery can be used as an example to evaluate universalism versus relativism. In many countries, bribery is a common way of doing business. However, a universalism approach would be that all bribery is bad. American companies are actually not allowed to give or receive bribes because the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits it. A relativism approach would be to understand specific cultures and what is deemed to be acceptable. Certain cultures may allow gifts but not bribes. However, it can be difficult to determine the difference between these two for a given situation.

Reference:

Trebilcock, M. (2016). Between universalism and relativism: reflections on the evolution of law and development studies. University of Toronto Law Journal, 66(3), 330-352.