What Does Moral Relativism Means

What Does Moral Relativism Means
Relativism– is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to (or
dependent on) some other element or aspect. Therefore, as Aristotle expressed it, things are what
they are only relative to other things, and nothing is what it is simply in virtue of itself. (Basic
Philosophy) Moral Relativism– is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect
objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical
or personal circumstances. (Basic Philosophy) Relativism claims that ethics are relative to
individuals, groups, cultures, and societies. Relativism resists universal norms and has different
cultures and different codes. Some Eskimo Cultures believe men ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Female babies in particular are likely to be killed at the parents' choice with no shame attached. As
for America people we would probably think that they beliefs are wrong compared to our beliefs.
But who are we to say if it is right or wrong because different societies have different codes and the
moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong in that society. Calling the action right in
that society makes it right, at least within that society. There is no objective standard that can be
used to judge one society's code against another. Is it arrogant to judge other cultures are should we
be tolerant of them? We need to ask the question: but is it true? One way to get at the truth is
realizing it is self–defeating. We cannot criticize know other culture judgement if they are following
their moral code. But according to moral relativism, there is not a single true or just morality. We
tend to believe that what is good for some people is not necessarily good for others. On the other
hand, we also argue with one another all the time about what actually is right and wrong. We do not
seem to accept the view that there is no better
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Relativism And Moral Absolutism
Moral Absolutism is concerned with right and wrong behavior. The absolute is what controls
whether the action or behavior is right or wrong. Therefore, from the position of moral absolute,
some things are always right and some things are always wrong no matter how one try to rationalize
them. Moral absolutism materializes from a theistic worldview. Ethical Absolutists can condemn
practices such as the Nazi harassment of the Jews because Absolutist views give definite guidelines
as to what is right and wrong.
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Absolutists would have to condemn a mother who steals food for her starving children because in
their eyes all stealing is wrong, whereas Relativists can say stealing is wrong usually but as the
mother needed to feed her children, what she did was right and should therefore not be condemned.
Absolutists can appear to be intolerant to views of others, for example, if they are against cruelty of
animals, they would be against the Islamic practice of sacrificing lambs, but Relativists would be
able to see the religious significance and the importance of that practice to the Islamic community
and will therefore not condemn it. Moral Relativism is tempting as an easy choice. If someone says
he or she is a moral relativist about precise issues they perhaps have an underline principle that is
morally true everywhere and is not relative. However, trying to find those underline principles is
really hard.
The interesting logical discussion is between moral absolutism and moral nihilism. However,
morally this question is so hard that reasonably we may want to act like moral agnostics. If we have
this attitude a moral relativistic stance will probably be the safest. If a whole group of people all
think murder is fine and I think it's not, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I get really
good evidence to the

Defense Of Moral Absolutism : Argument Against Moral...
Defense of Moral Absolutism I find many of the arguments against moral relativism to be very
convincing, but for me, there are other reasons why I disagree with that view point, in my opinion
it's hard to reconcile where rules and boundaries come into play. After carefully contemplating these
ideas for some time, I've come with three more arguments against moral relativism that explain why
I largely disagree with it.
The first argument being, that it is difficult for a Moral Relativist to explain what happens when a
society has a change of heart as a collective, for example, the rejection of having slaves as a morally
acceptable policy, or when an individual has a personal moral change. Like admitting that their
attitude about something that they used to hold was wrong. For them, there is no outside standard to
judge against so, while their attitudes change, they cannot really be said to improve or decline.
Which means there is a circular process of judging one 's values according to one 's values.
The second argument that I have against Moral Relativism is that there are difficulties in creating
boundaries on a "society" or "culture." In some cases what people feel to be their social or cultural
groupings may not align with their legal and national groupings, such as anarchists, and cults. A
person that holds minority moral views within their society or culture may consider their "culture"
more aligned with that minority grouping than with the larger state or national

Moral Relativism
Ethical behavior is different in every culture. One culture may see something as ethically right
where another may see it as wrong. Moral relativism plays a role in accepting differences between
cultures, even if they do not agree. Everyone is different. Each region of the world has beliefs in
how things should be done. Rules are set to guide them in creating a sense of control over actions.
Not every action is justifiable, but there are ways to find out what is really the reason for a certain
culture to say something is right or wrong. "For example, an ancient society might have considered
dyeing one's hair green to be a punishable offense. Most modern societies would find that strange, if
not oppressive. Yet, good cultural perspective might tell us more. If we were to find out that green
hair was a sign of a prostitute, we would understand that it wasn't the hair color itself, but the
prostitution that was truly considered "wrong."(allaboutphilosophy.org/cultural–relativism.htm)."
We need to be able to look at an ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We believe in individuality and that everyone has the right to make decisions on how to live. Some
may not see that our way of life is ok. If we had a visitor from another country, like Africa, come to
America and observe the marriage of two same sex people, they may see that as ethically wrong. We
cannot tell them it is right, we can only hope they can understand. Acceptance of different cultural
beliefs is hard for many cultures to achieve. Even in the U.S., we struggle with ethical relativism
amongst our fellow American. There are many religions in America. Every religion gives a specific
belief in how life is supposed to be. Someone with one religion may see that giving to the poverty
stricken area is the right thing to do, and another person from a different religious background may
see it as morally wrong because the poverty stricken individuals need to work and create a better life
for

The Philosophy Of Moral Relativism
In the beginning of the semester, we were given an ethical inventory and I felt fairly confident with
my results. I 've never taken an ethics class before, so I was very interested in learning about
different philosophies. I came to class with an opened mind and eager with curiosity and was
intrigued by the many different philosophical theories. This newfound information influenced my
current stance when re–taking the inventory. There were a few questions which I had a change of
heart in, most of these questions circled around the philosophy of moral relativism and moral
absolutism.
At the start of the course, I believed that right and wrong was not determined by one 's culture. I
believed that every being acknowledges that there are certain overarching morals, i.e., thou shalt not
kill. By the end of the course, I changed my opinion on the matter; this change is influenced by the
philosopher, Ruth Benedict. Benedict 's philosophy of moral relativism states that morality is
culturally relative–morality is dependent upon what is socially approved, and that "good" varies
among different societies. Each society has their own expectations of behavior, and that in turn
molds the morality of the individual. For example, an individual being brought up in Nazi Germany
will view the treatment of Jews as "normal ," not batting an eye, in seeing them murdered.
Nonetheless, I still stand behind my initial idea of a "universal morality" but I understand and accept
the role in which

Moral Relativism in the Dark Knight
Moral Realism v. Moral Relativism In the movie The Dark Knight, Batman is faced with a new
challenge–dealing with the Joker. Batman, and the city of Gotham, views the Joker as a mysterious,
sadistic criminal who is a freak of nature. However, the challenge becomes very personal for
Batman as the Joker confronts Batman about everything he believes in. The Joker does this because
he has a very relativistic view on life. Even though he murders innocent people, tortures others for
amusement, and manipulates everyone he meets, he does not view his actions as wrong. In fact, he
does not even believe in an absolute right. He believes that everyone else is crazy for thinking that
there is a right and wrong that all people should follow, and he ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It is easy to see why the Joker strongly believes that a sensible life is created by living by his or her
own rules, but he is not right. If everyone lived by their own right and wrong, there would be never–
ending chaos in the world. People would be doing what they believe is right, and then they would
become angry when someone is unfair or cruel towards them. If everyone had a relativistic view, the
universe would never be balanced. During

Difference Between Moral Relativism And Moral Objectivism
Essay Assignment #1 Morality seeks to provide a moral agreement that binds the people in a society
by providing a blueprint of shared values that dictate what is right and wrong. The two principles of
morality are moral objectivism and moral relativism. The thesis of this essay is that moral relativism
is a better guide to morality as compared to moral objectivity as it puts things into perspective by
considering moral ideas and variables on a universal understanding.
Moral relativity cannot be completely ignored. As morality is a practical activity, relativity provides
a better moral scope compared to moral objectivism. Moral objectivism could be appropriate if the
current order of things in today's universe is obliterated or if people live as hermits that do not
interact with others.
Morals are relative to cultures and individuals. The same activity can have different moral values
depending on a particular society, culture or persons. For instance, many people in the Western
world consider killing to be bad. But are all instances of killing bad? Is it morally right to kill a
killer? For one with objectivism beliefs, all killings are bad versus one with relativism beliefs would
say "let us look at the entire ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
There is a strong connection between values and human happiness. The free will of an individual
creates values. Utilitarianism states that human beings choose actions that maximize their pleasure
and minimize their pain. Value theory can provide a sound base of developing moral guidelines that
can bring the greatest good and little or no harm to many people in the society Since values can only
be obtained through personal reasoning, they can provide able direction to the moral principle The
fact–value problem arises when there is a difference between "what is" and "what ought to be.
Inconsistency between "what is" and "what ought to be" can result in confusion and chaos in a
society or

Midgley's Idea Of Moral Relativism
We currently live in a society that is pushing towards the idea that no one should be discriminated
against. This includes discrimination over one's' culture and beliefs. While this broad idea seems
good, it comes with unforeseen problems. In this essay, I am going to argue against Midgley's idea
of moral relativism and how their ideas create an unhealthy society leading towards anarchy. Moral
relativism is a prominent idea in philosophy that asks the question "Who am I to judge?". This
question focus primarily on morals between different people and cultures. As different cultures have
different values and ways of life it stands that the morals between two cultures would vary, whether
it be minimally or vastly. Midgley believed it was impossible to understand other cultures' way, and
that if we wanted to remain respectful and non discriminatory then we must not pass any form of
judgement upon each other. Moral relativism is a problematic idea that will lead to a global society
with no rules. If it is believed that you can not judge another for what they find morally acceptable,
then it is not a far reach to say that you can not stop another person from doing what they find
morally acceptable as well. With actions such as that, the world we live in would be drastically
different from what it is now.
In the mid–1900s, a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Moral relativism focuses on the idea that you cannot judge someone's morals if they are different
than yours, leading to the problem that you cannot stop their actions since they are dictated by
morals. Our prison system is put in place to stop those who have performed actions we deem
immoral. The problem with this is that if we cannot deem any actions immoral then we can never
place anyone in a prison. This places those who have not done immoral deeds in an unsafe position
where they must live amongst thieves and

Moral Realism, Moral Relativism, And Moral Skepticism
When people hear the term "ethics," most of their minds turn to dilemmas discussed by figures such
as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Aristotle, and other famous philosophers. These men debated
what is considered to be morally good and how a person can become ethical. Operating under
normative ethics, these philosophers did not question whether or not ethics even existed, but rather
if they exist, what are they? The branch of ethics that questions the foundation of ethics and morality
is metaethics. There are three standpoints when debating metaethics: moral realism, moral
relativism, and moral skepticism. I will be discussing my argument for moral realism and contend
that moral relativism and skepticism are inaccurate. I will prove the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For instance, in America, it is not uncommon to see a child spanked for misbehaving or disobeying
his or her parent. However, in Sweden, this action is not only illegal, not also frowned upon. A
moral relativist would explain that this is because moral facts can exist and be objective in America,
but can be still objective and independent of Sweden's morals. Lastly, disagreeing with both moral
realist and relativists, moral skeptics believe there are no moral facts; all morals are equivalent to
opinions, and they are different for everyone. Moral skepticism says that all morals are simply rules
created to control humans and their behaviors. For example, the moral skeptic would argue that the
reason controversy exists over issues such as abortion is that each person has opinions that are
independent of others. Skeptics would also say that there are no right answers to moral dilemmas,
because each person will come to a different conclusion.
The validity of realism in metaethics exists based on the fact that humans have certain physical
attributes that occur as a reaction of how we act–we have physical reactions when something
morally wrong occurs. More specifically, the human anatomy responds negatively to unethical
activities. For example, the idea of lying is prima facie ethically wrong according to realism; telling
the truth is objectively ethical. This is proven to be true based on the human body alone; it naturally
reacts when we lie by raising our heart

Moral Relativism, By James Rachels
In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points
of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to
prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise
false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms
that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then
there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as
moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare
what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are
points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality,
therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.
An argument is an attempt to prove that something is true (or probably true) by offering evidence. In
philosophy there are usually three premises that are part of the argument. Premises are evidence
used to attempt to prove the conclusion. The third premise is the one that sums up that argument.
Arguments can be objectively true or subjectively true. For an argument, x is objectively true if and
only if x is the case, and x is subjectively true for S if and only if x coheres with S's worldview of X
is simply a matter of taste.

Moral Relativism Challenges
The challenges of moral relativism. Moral relativism argues against the idea of cultural moral
relativism as a proper theory of ethics. Which is a view on moral judgments that is true or false, in
addition, that it depends on a specific type of standpoint, and that no other standpoint is exclusively
advantaged over all others. This proponent of this theory claims that morality is not the absolute,
and that the conception of right and wrong depends entirely on the cultural traditions and beliefs. On
this view could we honestly say that nothing can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Or could
we also speculate anything about our moral values that could be determine by the relative to a
diverse cultural of a moral system. Consequently, the main argument behinds these view of morality
relies on the observation that exist in many different cultures around the world ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Society must analyze whether these reasons can be used to discard moral relativism and support one
universal code that will be humanly expectable that everyone could agree upon. Considering the
cultural disagreement and beliefs of other western countries. Thus, we must draw some type of
conclusions that the absolute moral standards do not exist from merely observation that different
anthropological cultures have different opinions and views on morality, which is often contradicted
from each other's cultures. There could never be a simple argument because of all the different
cultures moral systems. There are no absolute moral standards, a paradox that leads to different
tunnels, with uncommon conclusion that is senseless, which is logically unacceptable or acceptable
depending upon what culture, religion, or country that you're in. Essentially, values and belief vary
from different cultures and throughout time things change, especially with moral decision and
religious justification for making moral decisions in

Relativism: Absolute, Moral, And Cultural
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. To disprove Absolute Relativism you have to
use the test of self reference, which is where you apply a theories criteria to itself, and see if the
theory can survive its own criteria. If it does not survive then it is considered contradictory. Absolute
Relativism is the belief that there is no truth or false. It's definition contradicts itself. It states that
there is no true or false, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Opinion can be either true or false. Truth and falsity are objective, because a statement can not be
both true and false. For example, it is either true or false that Hillary Clinton turned over all of her
emails to the State Department. This means in an objective reality you can find truth. This argument
is not contradictory, therefore this demonstrates that there is an objective truth. The fact that we can
argue morals shows there are different, objective views of morals. And people could use morals to
justify doing bad things, because they could say there is no truth to how one ought to act. But
societies come up with set of morals we agree on. Does this prove them wrong? No, because this is
going against the ad populum fallacy. Which means appealing to higher authorities to determine our
morals are. You can not assume something is right or wrong based on what the populus may feel. So
saying as a society we have morals is a fallacy, this means you could not use this in an

The Theory Of Cultural Moral Relativism
Michael Atefi
Professor Walker
Phil–1020
29 September 2015
First Exam
1.) The theory of cultural moral relativism is based on the beliefs that it is arrogant to judge the
moral codes of other cultures and that people should be tolerant towards the practices of other
cultures (Rachels 19). By holding these beliefs, the theory implies that all cultures are equal and
should be treated as such. Cultural moral relativism is also based on the idea that there is no
universal truth in ethics (Rachels 18). If a certain standard exists in a society, that standard is right
(at least in that society). The only way that a person can be right is if they follow the moral codes of
the society that they are apart of (Rachels 22). Moral codes vary from culture to culture. Therefore,
the metaphysical assumptions and metaethical implications of cultural moral relativism are that
morality is relative and there is no such thing as objective moral facts. According to James Rachels,
there are three problematic consequences that result from adopting the theory of cultural moral
relativism. One of the problematic consequences that result from adopting the theory of cultural
moral relativism is that people would not be able to determine if the customs of other cultures are
morally inferior to the customs of their own culture. This is problematic because people are inclined
to criticize the customs of other cultures so that they can determine whether their practices are right
or wrong. By adopting

Moral Relativism Reflection
Throughout my history education, many facts have been drilled into my head. I know dates and
names, but before this class I didn't have much opportunity to actually think about these facts
objectively. As it has been explained to me: "History is a portrait that is printed differently
depending on the artist's bias" (Roderick), that is to say that just as each artists painting of the same
thing would vary, and that the same concept applies to history. The past is often presented to us as
mere facts, and it is this class that has given me the opportunity to assume the job of a historian and
create my own storyline. Moral Relativism plays a huge part in my personal thought process about
history. I tend to attempt to see things from more than just my perspective. Though I may disagree
with many of the actions taken throughout history, my belief is that it is important to look at and
understand the mindsets that lead to these events. This analysis of mindsets rather than just pure
facts allows a more thoughtful view of history, that I believe is essential in order to truly understand
the subject. One major example of how different perceptions of facts can lead to different narratives
are the causes of the American Revolution. There are two main viewpoints that are typically seen on
these series of events: The Colonist's perspective and the English perspective. Though there are
many different lenses to view this topic through, these two are most commonly analyzed due to the

Moral Relativism And The Ethical Dilemma
Introduction When I first looked at the instructions for this assignment the ethical dilemma I wanted
to talk about came immediately to mind. It was a decision I made more than fifteen years ago but I
still remember it and had never thought of it in terms of ethics before. When I started this unit and
began looking at situations from that perspective I became more intrigued and wondered if any of
the readings could help me understand why I came to the decision I did . I once made the decision to
engage in a behaviour deviant to the norm of my society, deciding that the "correct" action to take
was to steal from one of my teachers. When I started reading about moral relativism and realised
that this might be a way to explain how a "wrong" choice can sometimes be a "right" one, or at least
to the person acting on it. Moral Relativism "The view that moral judgements are true or false only
relative to some particular standpoint...and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all
others..." (Westacott, date unknown) The foundations of the concept of moral relativism were first
expressed in 5th Century Greece; prior to this the idea of morals could be easily summed up as the
following by Westacott: "In the view of most people throughout history, moral questions have
objectively correct answers...cowardice is a bad quality...heroes deserve respect..." However, a few
intellectuals of the era began to contemplate the idea that this might not be as straightforward as
previously

Plato Moral Relativism
Joseph Cipullo
Professor Butera
Philosophy 103
October 28, 2017
Relativism or Realism What is Plato's reasoning for rejecting moral relativism in favor of moral
realism? An interpretation of moral relativism is that it is an understanding that the ethical position
of right or wrong is culturally centered and as a result subjected to a person's individual opinion.
Plato however spends a great deal of time arguing against moral relativism and in favor of moral
realism. The argument Plato proposes is that moral relativism is irrational because it has no logical
ground to stand on and therefore contradicts itself. Plato argues that if all values and standards are
subjective and dependent on perspective, everyone could adopt their own perception of the truth. By
this reasoning, Plato believes that moral relativism weakens itself by allowing the possibility it is
false. Therefore, Plato advocates a form of moral realism, which is the theory that moral judgements
relish a special sort of objectivity. In the Platonic dialogues, Plato spends a great deal of his time
arguing against moral relativism for a form of moral realism, through the philosophical ideas of
Socrates. Relativism is a theory that knowledge is comparative to the limited nature of the mind and
the state of knowing. Moral Relativism is defined as the view that moral judgements are true and
false only relative to some particular standpoint, and that no view is privileged over all

Moral Relativism Analysis
Moral relativism is the view that ethical and moral statements all vary from person to person, and
both opinions are equally valid because everybody has their own morals that they grew up to know.
There is no ultimate standard of morality, according to moral relativism, and no statement or
position can be considered ultimately right or wrong. After all, everybody is raised to believe in
different ideas, and they have no reason to believe that their way of thinking is morally wrong.
People are subject to certain moral demands, simply because it is what is accepted by the majority in
the culture you are raised in. In what follows, I will argue that it is moral for someone to do what
his/her culture finds morally right if they agree with those ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
He gives us a look into the different types of moral relativism. There are three main types of
relativism that Harman distinguishes between and those are normative moral relativism, moral
judgement relativism, and meta–ethical relativism. Normative moral relativism is the idea that
different people, as agents can be subject to different moral demands. Moral judgement relativism is
the view that moral judgements are true or false relative to some standpoint such as a period in
history, and that no person's stance is uniquely privileged over somebody else's. Meta–Ethical
relativism says that conflicting judgements can both be right. Normative moral relativism ties back
into our argument by not explicitly saying that the ultimate moral demands to which people are
subject to necessarily depend on their culture. For example, if you think The United States Military
presence is necessary in the Middle East because you do not agree with the morals that they have,
that does not make your morals any more correct. The people in the Middle East are simply
following the morals that they have grown up to know within their culture, and are entitled to their
own morals, and other cultures should not be allowed to infringe their beliefs on another culture
simply because they do not agree with their

Moral Relativism Defended Summary
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. They are
flawed in the sense that such oddities cannot be explained vis–à–vis inner arguments, but rather
without any reference to relativism at all. Harman has made two claims about inner judgements.
Firstly that "They ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
His examples may seem to further affirm the fact that once agents are out of our motivational reach,
any inner judgements about them present a logical oddity ,but yet not all his examples are equally
improper (logically odd) as each other. This suggests that logical oddities he points out in the
examples are flawed. Firstly let us consider a scenario involving Spike in his car and a pedestrian.
When Spike collides with a pedestrian, by saying ' you should not have done such a thing' , my inner
judgement is justified. Of course Spike could come up with a explanation ' the brakes failed!' . In
this case our inner judgement may have been too hasty, even false. However what remains is still a
logically valid inner judgement regardless of how hasty or false it is. It does not become senseless.
If we now turn to the car and blame it for the collision, that would then become a senseless act. This
has been illustrated clearly by the example which Harman brings up of the ' intelligent beings from
outer space' . He tries to

Ethical Relativism Moral Or Immoral
Brittany Haskell Mr. Legge CLN 4U Due: December 19, 2014 Ethical Relativism Moral or Immoral
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one 's culture. That
is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is
practiced. Moral or ethical relativism is the idea that what is considered moral or immoral depends
on the accepted behaviors within the society in which the determination is made. Therefore, what is
considered moral or ethical in one society may be considered immoral or unethical in another, but
each society is equally correct. For this reason the question remains, if and action is considered to be
moral does that mean that the action is also normal? Although something may seem right to
someone living in a different community, people living in a society like ours today may feel
differently. Ethical Relativism can be looked at are moral or immoral in many different ways.
Looking at the articles Guarding The Boundaries, A Defense of Ethical Relativism and Butterflies
and Wheels, it is clearly shown that although ethnical relativism may seem immoral, but really in
many ways is moral. In the article Guarding The Boundaries, by Anthony Daniels. The philosopher
states that men can no more avoid making moral and aesthetic judgments than they can avoid eating.
In our society it is clearly shown that abuse is incorrect and immoral, but looking at in in a different
perspective can

What Does Moral Relativism Means
Moral relativism: Moral relativism is defined as the viewpoint of an individual on moral values,
ethical standards or cultural values that individual believes in. It is subject to individual choice of a
person that he believes for himself. Whether it is right or wrong is decided by himself. It is the
notion which defines that there is no absolute value for right or wrong instead it is the personal
opinion of an individual based on the circumstances or on the cultural orientation. It can be taken
positively where it promotes tolerance or can be taken negatively by breaking law or doing
something wrong. Pursuing IT as Christian vocation means God has selected you for a particular job
and it is your duty to complete it and execute it in right

Moral Relativism Research Paper
Moral Relativist
We all face moral decisions each day. However, those daily situations may not oblige you to stop
and think critically about your moral reasoning. Moral Relativism is ethical judgments that has a
philosophized belief that right and wrong is not absolute values, nevertheless are personalized
according to the person and his or her situation or cultural orientation. Therefore moral relativism
comes in two forms, "what's right for you but not for me. The second form is cultural subjective or
cultural relativism saying "morality differs with different cultural" so each culture has its own form
of morality, and whatever is right for each culture means its right without an ultimate standard of
what is ultimately right. It is the claim that no ethical system is better than another. Moral
Relativism rests on the belief that values are one–sided. It holds the certainty that there is no
objective morality. Moral Relativism cannot ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It's extremely difficult for me personally to be objective because I am sure that with different
cultures come different beliefs and customs. Although depending on the circumstances such as "It is
wrong to torture innocent babies just for fun", I am morally objective. I don't believe that it s right
anywhere by anyone to torture babies for fun. That fact that someone could do that action for "fun"
as the reason shows me that they have knowledge of what they are doing and it is not based on
cultural standards. I am certain that to torture babies for "fun" is unethical and it's an action of pure
evil and wrong. Perhaps if they didn't know why they were torturing babies then my answer may
have been relativist but to do such an action with a justification for 'fun" then it's absolutely and
entirely

Was Machiavelli's The Idea Of Moral Relativism?
The prevailing thought currently held in America on justice is the idea of moral relativism. Simply
put, moral relativism states that a person's moral and ethical beliefs are entirely subjective, they are
completely dependent on an individual's social, cultural, and personal circumstances. There are no
transcendental or universal moral truths governing what is right or wrong. It is based solely on
opinion. Moral relativism does not argue for a spectrum of nuanced shades of grays instead of a
black and white concept of right versus wrong, it insists that the spectrum does not exist at all. In a
culture where evolution is a widespread belief accepted by the vast majority of communities and
individuals, this should make sense. A worldview where physics is the cause of everything and is all
that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If what is "right" cannot be proven by the scientific method then who's to say it even exists? A world
where science is the ultimate judge of truth renders anything existing outside of the physical realm
as irrelevant. A major argument used to defend this theory is that of "realism vs idealism". The
thought stems from, and is heavily influenced by the work of Machiavelli, a philosopher from the
late 1400's who was a major founder of modern political science. He proposed that all philosophy
searching for ideals and and perfection was utterly vain, and has little more practical application
than the act of daydreaming. The ideal world simply does not exist, so why waste time speculating
what it might look like? Instead, study the real world and real human behavior, and base motives
and conduct on what actually holds practical value in real life, and you will be able to

Moral Relativism: A Christian World View
"Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular
standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely
privileged over all others." (Westacott, 2017) Moral relativism is a belief and worldview that states
that the individual is the source of what is real and true and that there is no absolute truth in the
world. Meaning no religion or way of life is absolutely right and can dictate what is morally sound
behavior. Essentially this removes responsibility from ourselves to do what is morally right and
allows us to act in a way that satisfies ourselves or meets what our own view of what is morally
right says. This worldview states that everyone's ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The easiest place to see this is in social media and art today. Judgment of how others think and act
has become a moral crime and there is no place for accountability or correction. This becomes my
out when I wish to justify my actions even when I know they are wrong. This mindset is not hard to
find in today's society as many have adopted this way of thinking to almost ignore the problems
around them and focus on themselves. However, the benefit of this movement has been the
expanding accepting of tolerance. Historically speaking, tolerance is a key to peace and was
modeled by Jesus Christ during His

Stockman Moral Relativism
What are the implications of Dr. Stockman's actions for the issue of moral relativism?
Moral relativism is the belief that moral principles depends on cultural acceptance, or a subjective
point of view. We get to see how subjective it can be reading Henrik Ibsen's play, The Enemy of the
People (Pojman 166). The play is about a doctor (Stockman) in a Norwegian town, who learns that
the water used in the towns baths is contaminated. Dr. Stockman feels morally obligated to inform
people of his findings. His brother Peter, is the town's mayor. Peter does not think the people need to
know about the water and warns his brother to keep silent. Dr. Stockman rejects his brother's
warnings. Doing so, results in the doctor becoming an outcast. I can imagine the dilemma that the
doctor faced. He is aware of the revenue that the baths generate for his hometown. Yet, he is also
ethically responsible as a doctor to notify citizen about the harm that the baths will cause. I was
surprised at the people's response to the doctor. He tells them the truth, but they reject it. Their
actions highlight some issues of moral relativism.
The two brothers are examples of how personal opinions and self–interest determine our moral
outlook. Stockman is looking at his moral obligation from a doctor point of view. He is concerned
with public health. Peter is looking from a mayor point of view. He is concerned about the towns
economy and his reputation. The brothers meet to discuss the problem. Peter

Moral Relativism: Diversity Arguments
Journal #11
Ethical Frameworks
Directions: In your journal, define the following positions, outline criticisms/ counterclaims, and
then evaluate from your perspective.
Moral Relativism:
Diversity Argument:
It wasn't long ago that people really started becoming aware of the essence of moral diversity. It was
discovered that affiliates of different cultures very often have completely different beliefs about
what is considered wrong and what is considered right and usually act according to their beliefs.
This idea of different cultures owning different moral values perhaps suggests that theres no
absolute truth to morality. There are groups of people who have responded to this idea of moral
diversity, saying that moral diversity isn't proof enough of moral relativism. These people, or these
anti–relativists do believe that some cultural customs are just purely wrong. Its important to
remember that there are always going to be a difference ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
so basically, relativism would be inconsistent because of the fact that is would essentially deny the
beliefs of there being absolute values. so religious relativism basically maintains that one religion
can be true for one person or culture but not for any other.
Utilitarianism Ethics:
Utilitarianism proposes the following principle: That an action must be weighed on the amount of
happiness that the action will result in. In other words, a "good" action is an action that will make
the most people happy. I personally think that utilitarianism is just another form of relativism.
Essentially, if the goal is to just maximize happiness of the most people, then the right action's going
to be based on the viewpoint of the majority of people benefiting at the expense of another group of
people. In other words, the rightness of an action is relative to the viewpoint of a majority who
consider it so.
Journal

Moral Relativism and Problems Associated With this Philosophy
Moral relativists believe that no one has the right to judge another individuals choice, decisions, or
lifestyle because however they choose to live is right for them. In addition everyone has the right to
their own moral beliefs and to impose those beliefs on another individual is wrong. At first glance
moral relativism may appear ideal in allowing for individual freedom. After all why shouldn't each
individual be entitled to their own idea of moral values and why should others force their beliefs on
anyone else. "American philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882), tells us, what
is right is only what the individual thinks is right. There is no higher court of appeals, no higher,
universal, or absolute moral ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After all their actions, they believe are right and you cannot tell them they were wrong. In turn, we
can imagine for a minute that your personal morals and values contain, "eye for eye" from the Bible
book of Exodus 21:24. Therefore you can morally seek this mugger out and rightfully injure him
and steal his belongings. While carrying out your right to inflict the same damage on your attacker,
their young child is watching and feels that what you are doing is wrong. The child in turn applies
their moral values to the situation and approaches you with a gun because they feel it is morally
correct to use whatever means necessary to protect their home and family. This chain reaction of
individuals applying their moral values to situations that arise is a continual and expanding
predicament. How do you stop a chain reaction when everyone involved is right in their own mind?
According to moral relativity every individual is "the source" of their own "moral authority....and
who has the right to tell any other individual that he is wrong.......according to that other individual's
highest authority (his self), " his behavior is right and morally just.
Beyond injuries inflicted to another person, moral relativism is even more absurd in less obvious
dilemmas. The story found on page 118 of "American Vision and Values" describes a moral
relativist parent who is raising her child without judgment. In

Cultural Relativism And Morals And Codes
Philosophy has many different topics that are debatable and have been argued throughout its long
history. Cultural relativism is a very interesting and controversial topic in the philosophical/
religious world. To further understand cultural relativism one must first learn the definition. Cultural
relativism is the view that Different cultures have different moral codes and values, therefore culture
is subjective and arbitrary. When given a closer look at cultural relativism we come to the
conclusion that it is not as plausible as it first appears and that certain moral values are needed in
creating a sustainable and thriving society (57).In This paper I will begin with a short analyst briefly
stating the beliefs of a cultural relativist, explaining their values and examining their views on
cultural morals and codes. Then moving on to analyzing the Argument of cultural differences which
discusses the view that there is no universal "right" or "wrong" when examining cultures moral
views; a cultures morals and values are simply a matter of opinion. Lastly I will confirm that every
culture has a diminutive amount moral views and values. As we observe cultural relativism a
relativist of this theory would assume the claim that all moral rules and values are only relative to
culture; the views of a culture are subjective and arbitrary. Meaning there is no real universal
standard when examining another cultures views and morals every standard is dependent on a
cultures own

Paul Boghossian Moral 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.
Boghossian first shows how moral relativism is not a viable theory by ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For example, he says that if a person was invited to eat dinner with the Queen in Buckingham
Palace, that the guest should not slurp her noodles; in contrast, she should slurp her noodles in Xian,
China where it signifies the enjoyment of a meal. These different conventions mean that the way to
eat is not absolute. This does not, however, point to moral relativism. Though Boghossian concedes
differences in customs across cultures, he does not equate convention to morality. Showing
differences in behaviors actually damages the argument of the moral relativist further by making a
strong case for the existence of moral

What Are Moral Relativism?
Jassim Al Hamqan
Philosophy
Dr. Brown
9th of September
What is Moral Relativism? What is the Cultural Differences Argument in favor of Moral Relativism
that was given by Herodotus and, more recently, by Ruth Benedict? What are some of the examples
Benedict gave to illustrate her argument?
Moral relativism is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is
impossible to establish objectively. Its proponents claim that there is no moral truth and that any
statement about what is good or bad points of subjectivity. The moral would only be a matter of
opinion because any moral judgment would invariably and exclusively dependent culture from
which it came. So there can be no universal moral prescription. In the end, the moral judgment
would be reduced to a partial and biased assessment of the consequences of an act (Gowans).
According to Ruth Benedict, culture implementing various social models appropriate to its ethos, as
it leaves little room for other types of the same institutions. Those aspects of life that seem most
important to us in terms of our culture may have very little value in other cultures, oriented
differently than ours. One culture hardly understands the value of money, to another – they are the
basis of everyday behavior. In one society technology incredibly weak even in the vital areas in the
other, as "primitive", technological advances are complex and finely designed for specific situations.
One is building a huge

Protagoras And Moral Relativism
Protagoras is one of the leading Sophists and is most famous for the saying "Man is the measure of
all things; of those that are, that they are, of those that are not, that they are not." His statement
claims that all truths are relative to the individual who hold them and that there is no absolute truth.
Judgements and truths change from one person to another as the environment, the norms, and the
culture change. According to Protagoras, even morality is relative and the truth of moral judgments
is limited to the context in which they are affirmed. In other words, moral relativism is the view that
moral judgements are true or false only relative to a particular society, situation or individual.
Therefore, there is no universal principle ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, it is true that sometimes we can mistake about what is right or wrong as we are human
and mistake is human. I think that most of us had encountered times when we did what we thought
was right and later realized that we did was wrong. That is the reason why we should agree on what
is bad or good after a deep reflexion. As a result, we all need some moral judgements that we all
should respect if we are in the wrong path. This should be a common foundations of absolutes and
truths that will represent universal principles for all humanity and can be set up and determined by
the majority. Because we are different and have different way of thinking, we should rely on free
speech and democracy as they are key to our being closest to an accurate perception of what is
moral and what is not. Democracy enables us to have all sides of an issue and it is a key in giving us
the power to act in a moral way. Furthermore, in a democracy system, it is the majority who rules
for the interest of the majority. It is true that the majority might be wrong, but it is more likely that
an individual will be wrong. Moreover, it is more likely that the majority will be more concerned
with their welfare than an individual will

Cultural Relativism And Moral Atheism
Cultural relativism refers to the concept of assessing an individual's values, belief system and
cultural practices not in isolation but against the backdrop of other cultural practices and beliefs. To
understand the dynamics of cultural relativism, it is important to understand the theory of relativism.
In terms of culture, relativism focuses on breaking free from the idea that moral standards of an
individual or a society can be compartmentalized, because we are all ultimately governed by ethical
guidelines that may be unique to a distinct cultural and geographical setting but cannot remain
restricted by it.
Cultural relativism can be interpreted in two different ways:
Moral Atheism, that states that the constantly shifting patterns of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As, according to the broad principles of this theory, it would be wrong to judge the practices adopted
by the Nazis as 'immoral', because as per their own communal criteria those actions were justifiable.
Similarly, practices abhorred globally, such as paedophilia for instance, may fall within the ethical
code of what's socially acceptable in certain communities.
The concept of not imposing one's standards on another as an absolute truth potentially threatens to
blur the globally accepted norms of right and wrong. Just because different culture have different
standards, we would lose the right to condemn those waging terrorism and claiming innocent lives,
or those subjecting women and children to trafficking and abuse, and those threatening to use their
nuclear stockpiles to settle disputes. After all, in their own cultural confines, they are doing the
'right'

Moral Relativism Essay
Newsstands proclaim it. Talk shows trumpet it. Scandal, murder, and deception! People share a
common disdain for these evils, scorning those who commit the dirty deeds. Laws are upheld to
prevent people from doing "bad" things, but how do people come to an agreement on what is truly
wrong? Even as society moves away from traditional teachings and perspectives, many acts are still
universally looked down upon. Throughout history, the majority of civilizations have held
surprisingly similar moral ideals regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although moral
relativists believe that morality is individually determined, there is, in fact, an objective moral
standard that governs all humanity, because a sense of right and wrong is universal, transcends time
and culture, and is evident in the majority of people. Moral relativism is the belief that there is no
universal moral truth. Instead of seeking objective principles to guide their decisions, moral
relativists look toward moral standards their cultural, social, historical, and personal circumstances.
They do not view right and wrong as absolutes, but as personal opinions. True moral relativists have
no ground to judge another person's actions, as they believe each person has their own set of moral
beliefs. Therefore, they cannot be judged as wrong if others disagree with their decisions. As
Marquis de Sade, a French philosopher and politician, once said, "There is no action. . . that is truly
criminal; or one that

Moral Relativism And Moral Truth
'Is there such a thing as moral truth? What bearing does this have on law?'
Some would say that moral truth is another word for moral objectivism, since if something is true,
then it means it's an unchanging fact, hence it's objective. Moral objectivism is the view that what is
right or wrong is not dependent on individual or societal opinion, but instead is grounded on facts
that are external to human society. It's opposite is moral relativism which states that what is right or
wrong varies according to each culture or each individual. In this essay I will prove that there is
such a thing as moral truth, because relativism is not logical and it does not work. I will first discuss
the most common arguments for relativism and I will rebut ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
If I believe there is life on Mars and you believe there isn't, we cannot say that my belief is true for
me and you belief is true for you. One of us is mistaken". HERE One should know that there is a
difference between beliefs and truths, because we might believe and act differently but that does not
mean that the truth does not exist. Objective standards of right and wrong still exist.
A subjectivist lives according to his or her own chosen standards or values. Ernest Hemingway
states " I only know that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you
feel bad after..." HERE so if you feel guilty, the act is immoral and if you feel good, it was moral.
The only positive thing from this argument is free will and the individual can create his own
standards to live by. This is though problematic, because there are no objective standards here, and
the subjectivist can justify whatever he is doing according to his feelings. Therefore, this means that
one can justify murder with subjectivism if there is a feeling of satisfaction after the homicide. Also,
when morality depends on emotions, there will be chaos, since one's 'moral principle' might clash
with another person's
The second argument a relativist would address is the second type of relativism, which is
conventionalism in which morality depends on what society thinks. According to Cultural
anthropologists such as William Graham Sumner, different cultures have different moral

Gilbert Harman Moral Relativism Analysis
This essay will be examining Gilbert Harman's paper "Moral Relativism". Harman stands behind
and explores the implications of moral relativism within his paper. In particular, this essay will be
picking out a specific argument, the consequences of aforementioned argument, and will then fight
for or against the argument. Harman does not stray too far from moral relativism in the traditional
sense within his arguments, but what he centres his idea of moral relativism upon is what this paper
will be examining. Harman states that "There is no single true morality. there are many different
moral frameworks, none of which is more correct than the others." taken face value this idea of
equality of values, makes a lot of sense and seems like the most tolerant and rational way of
thinking. Yet, once you dive into the implications and consequences of this idea, I argue that it is not
rational, ideal, or as tolerant as it may seem. There are two major consequences of Harman's idea.
The first consequence regards the dismissal of the hardwired instincts of humans. A good example
of a hard–wired instinct is a parent, most prevalently: a mothers, instinct to protect/ raise a child.
The aforementioned instinct is universal, it is wired into our brains for survival. It is true that in
some countries, particularly in the middle east that if a child dishonours their family that they can be
ostracized and abandoned, and the abandonment is not morally or ethically wrong in that culture. By

Moral Relativism
Different cultures view ethics in different ways. I think that moral relativism should be viewed the
same way all across the world. Some cultures praise the wrong doing of their people and celebrate
their behavior whether it is wrong or right. Other cultures, will shun a group or individual if he/she
was doing something unethical. As a society, America tends to judge an action before we hear the
story or background of the person. Our country is a prime example of how moral relativism applies
to everyday actions. If someone is committing a crime, the individual will be sentenced and
punished if necessary. However in other countries, an individual that has done wrong may go free.
For example, the incident that happened in
Tunis, Tunsania, now has a video created on the people that committed the acts. In American
culture, the people that committed the crime would have been caught, tried and sent to jail. In some
cultures, what one deems as unethical, may be another society's norm. Take abortion as an example,
we as Americans may view a mother having an abortion as a "wrongful act", but in some ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Many cultures today have belief in a higher power. Individual countries may not view the same
practice to get to eternal life, but all agree that there is life after death. For instance, many Christians
believe praising God and living according to the bible will get people into heaven. On the other
hand, Muslims believe that following the Koran and praying to the East will get people into eternal
glory. These religions both have the same idea that one must do something in order to seek the face
of God and to live right so they can enter the gates of heaven. They may worship differently to get
there, but still have the same general idea. "There is an increasing desire and an increasing will
across the world today to build a sustainable and just world," (Tippett, Kirsta,

What Is Unrestricted Moral Relativism
In this essay I will argue that unrestricted moral relativism is incorrect because of the objection that
our moral judgments is not just based on our culture or history. I believe that our moral judgments
are based on who we choose to be. If this theory was true. This means that you are stuck with
cultural morals for the rest of our lives. Yet a lot of people move to different places with different
cultures. They start to adopt to new morals, and new way of thinking of what is right or wrong.
Moral relativism states that our moral judgments are based on our culture. There are no standpoint
that is uniquely privileged over all others. The main idea about this theory is that different cultures
have different moral values, so there are no universal

Moral Absolutism And Moral Relativism
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
absolutism is a moral view that certain actions are inherently right or wrong. Moral absolution, in
more depth, is a belief that there are established standards against moral questions that can be
judged and certain actions are considered right or wrong. Absolutism represents that ethics and
morals come from within the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God. Moral
absolutists base their decision on "what is right" in the eyes of God and humanity. ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Under age drinking is against the law in the United States and a sin in the Bible. Moral relativists
would view under age drinking as moral depending on the personal interest of the under age
drinking. Moral absolutist would view under age drinking as immoral and wrong automatically, no
matter the reasoning of the action. Moral relativists would make their decision about under age
drinking based on their personal view of the action. They believe if the under age drinker felt it was
necessary to drink alcohol because it was a special occasion or were peer pressured then it's morally
okay. Moral absolutists already have their decisions made about under age drinking. It is against the
law and should never be

Moral Relativism And Moral Concepts
Moral relativism is a methodological principle of interpretation of the nature of morality underlying
ethical theories. It is expressed in the fact that moral concepts and ideas gave extremely relative,
changeable and arbitrary. Moral principles, concepts of good and evil are different in different
people, social groups, and individuals in a certain way connected with the interests, beliefs, and
inclinations of people, limited regarding its value time and place.
But this diversity and variability of moral ideas relativists do not see anything in common and
natural. In the end, relativism leads to subjectivity in the interpretation of moral concepts and
judgments, to the denial to them of any objective content. Ethical relativism often expressed a desire
of certain social groups to undermine or subvert the dominant form of morality, which was given an
absolute and dogmatic sense (absolutism). In the history of ethical teachings, the relativistic
conception of morality is being developed in the slave society. The Sophists, pointing to the moral
conceptions opposed to different nations (that is a virtue in some, condemned by others as a defect),
emphasized the relativity of good and evil (good is what is useful in some people).
The relativism of the Sophists reflected the desire to debunk the absolute moral values,
institutionalized centuries–old traditions of the past. Such an attitude to the moral principles is also
evident in academics – the later followers of Plato. In

Ethical Relativism And Moral Relativism
In this paper, I will argue against moral relativism as the correct way to judge human morality. There
are several issues with moral relativism, and I will focus on why moral relativism's argument is false
and also consider the implications of accepting relativism. I will propose an alternative framework
for making moral judgments about right and wrong and consider relativist objections.
Philosophers often vary in their usage of moral relativism, so, for the purpose of this paper, I will be
considering moral relativism to be the belief that moral judgments are right and wrong only relative
to the framework of a community. It follows from this that relativists also believe no moral
standpoint can be proved to be objectively superior to another.
Let us consider the argument that moral relativism proposes. Since a relativist believes that moral
absolutes do not exist, it follows that he must believe that all moral claims are only preferences. For
example, a relativist would say that the claim 'murder is wrong' is true only if and only if the speaker
believes it is true. So, if I say 'Killing is wrong', it is morally true if I actually believe what I say. It
follows from this that, according to relativism, moral disagreements are disagreements about
preferences (as opposed to facts). This is because, as mentioned, relativism believes morality to be
preferences, so disagreements of morality must be disagreements over preferences. Since this claim
follows from the main argument,

What Does Moral Relativism Means

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Mandy Cross

More from Mandy Cross (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

What Does Moral Relativism Means