The Moral Relativism Theory

Anyone who has morals would be morally wrong if they used those morals to make immoral ends. People with morals should not be seen doing immoral acts. Within “Letter from Birmingham Jail” King states another point that shows what was happening in the United States is ethically wrong. He states, “privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily” (2). Therefore King’s use of ethos played a big role in changing America’s frame of

This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole. Furthermore, counters the rule of law because the author believes the authority should never be challenged, and therefore the author suggests that the authority is exempt of these laws. A thinker such as Hobbes would agree with the author of this source as he believed that without a strong government it would lead to nation wide chaos, such as that that the author describes through the use of the phrase, “A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed.”. Additionally, Locke would disagree with all parts of this source, as he believed that individuals know for themselves what is best and therefore should have the freedom to make their own decisions. For the second sentence of this source Locke and Rousseau would both disagree as they believed that consent of the governed was vital to society, which directly contradicts the authors issues with the challenging

On Authority and the Dichotomy of Morality “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” -Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV Authority comes in many forms, and all of them, at some point, by someone, are resisted. Be it for selfish purposes, for others’ good, or for the sake of resistance in and of itself, it is done. This quote by Voltaire offers a hard to contest critique on the nature of society, and of both the people within it and the authorities that govern it. In other words, it states that people lauded for being right have no interest in being told they are not, and tend to be in a position where they can make sure that they are not, much to the detriment of those who wish to do so. It is

If we have respect for ourselves, then we would not let other people take advantage of us. Whenever we do not have respect for ourselves, we would not have confidence and love ourselves. Self-respect is when you know how you should be treated by other people and yourself, and you do not tolerate people who depreciate them. Nowadays, anyone who does not respect themselves has usually held themselves lower than their peers. They think that everyone is better than their self and they typically belittle themselves too.

In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound.

Our problems in the world today cannot be conquered if only a few are strong enough to speak out over many. Morality is a constant negotiation between self and society in what appears to morally justified. Nothing can be truly morally justified for all, but if everyone follows their hearts into what they feel is right, then there has to be some good to come out in the

As the audience, we know slavery is wrong. Huck, on the other hand, feels pressured to conform to societal standards. Through Huck’s thoughts, Twain employs irony to differentiate society’s beliefs with Huck’s new understanding of

Unless there is a way to prove that common sense is the ‘correct’ view then this “criticism has no force” (ibid). The problem with this response is that if utilitarianism does not cohere with humans’ common sense, then even if it does provide the ‘correct’ answers, it seems like a theory which is far removed for humans’ natural moral instincts and a challenge to understand, so would then not be the best theory to use when handling moral

They came up with contradicting conclusions about morality. One of it was their stand about moral rules in the way which different communities also govern its people in different ways. For me, an example of which is that (The way how ‘community X’ govern its people is way too different with the way how ‘community Y’ govern its peo-ple; therefore the way how ‘community X’ govern its people is not and will never be applicable in the ‘community Y’). Sophists also believe that moral rules are unnatural because the Sophists noticed that people only obey the moral rules for the fact that they can only be judged afterwards if they would not follow it. My example for this theory is that: (The government said that piracy is a crime and that people must not commit this mistake, meanwhile, some people doesn’t really want to obey it but because of the fact that they would be put into jail for this crime then they would come up with the decision to just follow the moral rule, morality in this sense is really unnatural.)

This metaphor reminds the reader that no matter how much someone tries, perfection is unrealistic and unnecessary. People should not strive to achieve perfection because the idea of perfection is what society has planted into our minds. Instead people should strive to be unique and the best version of themselves. This idea is also backed up by Erins use of personification. After demonstrating the frustrating aspects of being human, Erin offers some reassurance.