The Role Of Individuality In The Works Of Marcus Tullius Cicero

Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.

Both Marcus Aurelius and Cicero try to create a guide, based on their stoic views, on how a person is supposed to live a purposeful life. Marcus Aurelius was an emperor and Cicero was a politician, so both serve somebody or something. In Cicero’s “On Friendship” he bases his guides on what he has learned from important people in his life. In Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” he bases his guide off of what he has learned as an emperor with stoic views. Some of what he Aurelius has learned is different from Cicero’s view of stoicism; an example of this is in section seven of Meditations. Section seven of Meditations is about what Aurelius learned from his tutor. He states, “Endure hardship, and have few needs; to do things for myself and not

Individuals of the same ethnic background share the same culture a factor that explains that there, as many cultures as there are ethnic backgrounds across the world. Globalization has, however, led to interaction of people from varied cultural backgrounds. Because of the interaction, globalization has been accused of limiting cultural diversity. It is, however, not the case in reality. The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of the factors that justify that globalization has not limited cultural diversity as its critics say. Thus, globalization should not be viewed as a hindrance to cultural diversity because the best subject of moral concern should be the individual person and not the nation, community or the society.

All around the world today, there is a lot of tension revolving around concepts of morality. In Moral Disagreement by Kwame Anthony Appiah, Appiah writes about differing values and morals around the world and within our society. He points out, “we aren’t the only people who have the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad; every society, it seems, has terms that correspond to these thin concepts” (658). However, these concepts are not always the same with each other in every society. In the same way that not everyone in our society believes in the same moral concepts. Unfortunately, it is these disagreements that often separate us as people. Forming different cultures, large and small, throughout the world. This is not a bad thing, but it does separate us as a race, leaving us to care more for one group of people rather than humanity as a whole. In Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, by Martha Nussbaum, Nussbaum suggest that a way to fix this problem, and to become a cosmopolitan person, is to teach students in our education systems more of different cultures throughout the world. Yet not only should we learn to accept other cultures and their beliefs, but we should also educate ourselves to accept everybody we meet, giving respect to them as individuals, if we ever truly want to become a citizen of the world.

Morality exists throughout all cultures and religions of the world in some shape or form. In

Mary Midgley, in her Trying Out One’s New Sword, argues against moral isolationism, which she defines as a position where, “Moral judgement…is a kind of coinage valid only in its country of origin” (161). She notes that supporters of this ethical theory view moral isolationism as a way to be respectful and tolerant of other cultures. In addition, holding this opinion about morality means that no one can understand any culture except their own, and thus, cannot make judgements of other culture’s moral standards. In this paper, I present one of her arguments and her reasoning in support of her premises. Then, I will provide an objection to her argument. Finally, I assess that objection, arguing that it does not show her argument against moral

The cultural relativists have offered us a view on what is the good, is depending on whether the virtue is approved by one’s culture or not. This brings us to another question—what is culture? Seemingly, people in a different country are practicing different religions so that everyone should have

Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

Unlike Cicero, Sallust came from a Plebian family, which allowed him to relate to the common people. Around 55 BCE he became a questor and worked his way up to become a tribune of the plebs in 52 BCE (Sallust,7). His political preference and agenda aligned him with what is known as the Populares, a group of Romans that favored the commoners, plebeians, and gave them a voice in the political scene. Due to his political agenda, he was removed from the senate around 50 BCE, but was reappointed around 48 BCE (Sallust, 7). This was due to his relationship with Caesar, who was also a member of the Populares. With all of this in mind, it is important to take in to consideration that both of these sources can have biases in their works, which can skew the truth. These biases can sprout from their different political beliefs to their dislike for each other. With saying that, they are both known to be credible sources and are commonly drawn upon by historians.

According to Mary Midgley, moral isolationism "consists in simply denying that we can never understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgements about it” (Midgley, 322). Midgley argues that moral isolationism is incorrect and it is illogical. She argues this by saying that it is possible for outsiders to judge foreign cultures, but moral isolationism is illogical because it excludes any kind of judgment. She also exposes that judgment is tied to respect and moral isolationism excludes barriers such as intermixing cultures. I believe that judgment of other cultures is crucial to the existence of moral values. Without judgment, individuals would not have their own opinions because judgment goes hand in hand with opinion. However, when one is judging another culture, they should be aware that their judgment should be respectful and take moral relativism into retrospect. We have to be ethical and fully understand that cultures vary when criticizing another culture. If we do not understand Ruth Benedict’s belief of moral relativism, then we are not lawful to judge another culture.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

In our country, someone who likes to be helpful is considered a model citizen, whereas in his own country he would be considered “abnormal” (Benedict p.2). Benedict used this example.to argue that like behavior, morality is culturally determined and that what can be morally right for one society can be considered morally wrong for another (Newton, Evaluating Cultural Relativism).

The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these

Performers, athletes, celebrities, government officials, teachers, and almost all individuals have one specific concept in common; almost every person has a separate private and public self. Celebrities often illustrate this concept. They are under constant pressure to uphold their public image and may tarnish their private self to keep their public status intact. In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare demonstrates through Brutus that people can be called to act differently in the eye of the public compared to how they might behave in private.