Philosophy Essay

Moral Relativism is classified under any positions concerning the differences in moral judgments between people and the culture. Moral relativism is the position that ethical or moral propositions make claims regarding cultural or personal circumstances. Moral Relativism affirms relative form of validation of moral statements but doesn’t deny them. Moral relativist typically view the ethical standards of right or wrong are culturally based and are issued to a person's individual decision. Instead of making their decision on “what is right,” decisions are based on self-interest. This procedure has a negative impact on behavior and will affected the way we treat others.

Moral Relativism is defined as the belief that conflicting moral beliefs are true. This carries the impression that what you respect as a right behavior may be a right conduct for you, but not for me. Moral Relativism is an attempt to

Do we wonder how the relativist thinks of Healthcare? Do they believe it is a right or a privilege? The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition (1993) it defines relativism as; 1. A. a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing. B: a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Relativism is the philosophical idea that the views and beliefs of a person are valid and relative to them. It can include many positions, whether it be religious, moral, cultural or even political. Over the course of this quarter I have been introduced to many different theories like Utilitarianism, Deontological and Teleological theories, but none of them got my attention like Normative Cultural Relativism. What’s great about philosophy is that there are no right or wrong answers, yet I cannot help but realize that many philosophers nowadays are biased about Normative Cultural Relativism. Many don’t agree and rather attack the theory which is why I intend to defend it.

To tackle the housing affordability, first of all, it is crucial to lift the supply of housing as it will release the pressure on the housing price. Nevertheless, the supply of housing is inelastic as it requires an adequate fund, time, approval from the Government. Besides, the housing system is heavily dependent on the private sector. Thus, the Government should provide initiatives for housing providers to shift the supply of houses in the market. Australia would follow the policies from other countries to tackle the housing affordability. However, it has to fit in the Australian context. These policies might work well in other places but it does not mean that it will be applicable in Australia. The Singapore Government has a public

His aim was to use this method of doubting everything you know to discover what we actually do know for certain. So we can prove them.

My conclusion on moral relativism is that it can do more harm than good as “it endorses social evils” and makes it hard to attain a utopia. If one culture endorses slavery, moral relativism will have no objection. This also “promotes moral apathy”, an idea which I disagree with. (Lecture 7. Moral Relativism-

Philosophy is defined by Webster as "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline" or "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods." This essay is a general look at those who pursued that intellectual means, those who investigated, even those who reasoned Reason. Because volumes could be written and this is a rather quick, unworthy paper: apologizes.

Relativism makes sense to people because the culture does not talk about a standard of truth. The youth of today are shown relativism and relativism is such an easy concept for imperfect people, which is everyone, to accept. Relativism can be accepted so easily because how people value emotions and feelings over truth that is frowned upon and looked at as rules or restrictions. Emotions and feelings are not gauge for truth. That is the truth. American culture loves to show that emotions and feelings are what they should base decisions on. They encounter experiences where someone calls them out for something that they did wrong and if they feel what they did was ok with them, they should not be told it was wrong. “What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me.” That is the code of

Before diving into the arguments for and against moral relativism, it is important to define some key terms including morality, cultural diversity, and tolerance. David Fisher, a Teaching Fellow at King’s College, London defines morality in his book, Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-first Century?. “Morality is thus neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Cultural diversity is simply the existence of various cultures in society. Tolerance is just the ability to accept something that you would not normally agree with.

Ethical relativism is the acceptance of differing views as all correct because there is no right answer. Ethical relativism eliminates all judgement because there is arguably no final truth, no right or wrong. As Doug Powell, author of Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics, puts it ethical relativism is the idea that “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me” (79). Simplistically, this ideology follows the conviction that we are unable to pass judgement on another for we do not have the power to say our ways or ideas are superior over another’s, While this may sound logical at first, a closer look into this ideology reveals frightening consequences from what can happen by strictly following

Moral relativism is becoming a greater part of society everyday. Since the idea of relativism states that nothing is absolute, the concepts of right and wrong are hazy. People are questioning their morals and wondering what they should believe, but in reality, no one knows. Moral absolutes do not exist in moral relativism. People are able to believe whatever they want, but they are not allowed to express their morals as fact.

In this chapter, the author assesses the various extremes of relativism in relation to truth. Relativism, like its name indicates, is the general view that truth is relative to the eye of the beholder. When this idea is limited to a single individual it is referred to as simple relativism. Likewise, it is called postmodern relativism when this idea extends to a larger group of people, institution, or society. In general, the author is skeptical about relativism as a whole claiming that people disagree on almost everything and the idea that “true if and only if true to my own beliefs” limits the way in which people can objectively confirm the validity of their values. He also proceeds to dismiss the “crazy” belief that truth

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.

There are three types of relativism as described by Richard Brandt in his paper Ethical Relativism. The first is descriptive relativism, which is actually a theory that simply states that there is a disagreement about morality between people (Brandt, 25). An example of descriptive relativism is cultural relativism, which states that cultures disagree on morality (Brandt, 25). This is considered a state of fact and is merely