Protagorean Relativism

Over the last several decades, long established taboo, including the right to abortion, the right to death, and LGBTQIA+ rights have become much more acceptable throughout the United States. Consequently, it seems like basic moral norms are up to the interpretation of current and societal ideals. Moral relativism is the belief that the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist only by comparison to a society’s moral code. It is an enticing moral theory in a world where so little seems absolute. Paul Boghossian, author of “The Maze of Moral Relativism” too believes that this idea of relativism is gaining popularity and importance in contemporary culture. However, he not only believes that moral relativism is not true, but an illogical or ‘incoherent’ moral theory. Moral relativism, he claims, cannot exist because there is no middle ground between ‘moral absolutism,’ the idea that moral facts are true across all cultures and time, and ‘moral nihilism,’ the rejection of all morality as people understand it, including the ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Boghossian’s argument is able to logically destroy moral relativism, leaving little option other than to accept that absolute morality exists somewhere.

Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute truth and can change with feelings. There are three types of Relativism; Absolute, Moral, and Cultural. I will be touching on Absolute and Moral Relativism. Absolute Relativism is the belief that there is no truth or false. Moral Relativism is the belief that there is no truth about how one ought to act.

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

Subjective relativism theorizes that an action is morally right if one approves it. Thus, with the person’s approval, the action immediately becomes morally right. However, this concept has major flaws. Subjective relativism believes that people are infallible and incapable of having flaws. This implies that individual in society cannot have a moral disagreement due to the fact the moral principles apply to everyone in society.

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.

In chapter 12, the grandfather taught his grandson wisdom by allowing him to learn from his own mistakes, as had his grandfather before him. The first time I remember learning about wisdom was when I was about six. I had been trying to convince my mother that, since it smelled so good, vanilla extract had to taste amazing. Long story short she told me otherwise, I didn’t listen, and I ended up in a spitting, gagging mess. Wisdom means acquiring many small pieces of knowledge over a lifetime and knowing when and how to put them to use when and where a situation arises in which those particular pieces of information are required. Wisdom is life’s gift to us for trying to demonstrate all the virtues that give meaning to

In chapter 3 of Superfreakanomics, the writers mainly talk about the existence of altruism. This chapter starts with the death of Kitty Genovese, her neighbors had the chances or at least they could save Genovese’ life by just asking, “What is wrong?” instead of ignoring or acting apathetic about it. The authors move to the whole 1860’s crimes by using this case, the boom explosion in population, civil rights or even the TV shows could be a factor that caused the increase of criminal. Then the authors introduce a lab experiment called “Ultimatum” to show as long as people get some profits, they will make things altruism. However, another experiment called “Dictator” indicates that three forth of people are willing to split money instead of

Being a relativist means that morality is based on each

Without knowledge and wisdom the future CEOs, political figures and activists leaders would not be enlightened to be who they are today. The leaders listed above all have a few things in common: improving an aspect of life, venturing, passionate. Don’t we all have these qualities in common too? Knowledge creates a catalyst that allows people to use their knowledge and impact the world. Who wouldn't want to impact the world? Yet, possibly without knowledge Captain Sully Sullenberger would not have landed U.S. Airways flight on the Hudson, Henry Ford workers would not be able to afford his cars and Neil Armstrong would never set foot on the moon. Knowledge and wisdom increases happiness by, allowing everyone to wake up everyday knowing they’re legacy is positively impacting the

In Gilbert Harman’s ‘Moral Relativism Defended’. He claims that we make inner judgements about people only if we suppose that they are capable of being motivated by relevant moral considerations (RMCs). He goes on to claim that such moral considerations present an logical ‘oddity’ if it were applied to people outside our RMCs, where he cites examples like Hitler and the employee from Murder, Incorporated to further illustrate this fact. I do not subscribe to his treatment of such examples, and I argue that the logical oddities he points out in those examples are flawed.

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

When one says that this elderly person has wisdom from various life experiences, he/she is not saying that the elderly person knows much about books and their profession. Instead, one would be speaking about the elderly person’s vast knowledge about what is important in life due to their multitude of experiences. While the elderly person may not be completely wise in the most encompassing form of wisdom, the elderly person does appear to have a more expansive understanding of what is important in life. Simply knowing what matters in life, however, does not satisfy the ultimate form of wisdom, for the wise must know why these things matter in life. That is, a truly wise person must have insight beyond the theoretical, into the practical. Beyond this, a wise person, in this view, must also know how to achieve what matters most, and, in knowing so, do what matters most. I say this because a truly wise person would be able to act upon what they know to be the most important thing in life. It is wiser for a person to act than to merely conceptualize what is most essential in life.

Protagoras’s relativism said that morals are just social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. That our culture, conditioning, experience and biopsychology influence our values. It is impossible to form a culture free or context free belief according to Protagoras. For example, I’m from Texas, so I have a vastly different culture than a person from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Socrates concluded that the truth was relative and that knowledge is based on specific qualities of the person as in the place you were born, age, religious affliliation, and family habits. He argued that we should only accept what seems to be true at the moment. He also believed that each culture only believes that it’s ways are best, but the person who is studying

Socrates, in skepticism, began a search for those with a reputation of wisdom. After studying men and their knowledge, he reasoned that the only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing. Although one may have extensive understanding in one area, there is way too much knowledge in the world to be contained by one man. Socrates stated, “I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish, and that some inferior men were really wiser and better” (Plato, 23). Those who believed that they knew it all could not be more ignorant, and those who admitted ignorance achieved the highest wisdom attainable on earth. Socrates accepted the idea that he, just like all men, contained very little or no wisdom at all. He was content with knowing this, and upon meeting others that lacked this philosophy, felt he was superior to them. He was unsure of the limitations the afterlife had on wisdom, but he was aware of it’s constraints on earth. This self awareness is what gifted him with the highest sense of enlightenment.

Aristotle sustains that wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is. For Aristotle, wise people know more than just what something is; they also know why it is what it is, or what causes it to be what it is. People with wisdom, for instance, a master worker understand not only that fire is hot, but also know why it is hot. Those with experience only, who do not know why something works in a certain manner, cannot teach. Say physicians understand that there is a relationship between the medical condition of this class of patients and the ingredients in this particular drug. They are then motivated to learn why the drug works on these