The Moral Relativism Theory

As a matter of fact King’s plan can be ethically justified. 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).

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.

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.

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

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.)

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. “Your hair doesn't always sit neatly, the way a poem sits so neatly in lines,” (line 13 and 14). Now hair and poems don’t actually sit, but what she is trying to convey is that again, self confidence is not about fitting in, it should be about standing out.

Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.

It seems like a reasonable claim not to accept anything without sufficient evidence but according to Inwagen, doing so can lead to a problem in which no one will have enough evidence to justify anything that they believe in. Sufficient evidence can either be objective evidence that will convince any rational person to take a certain side or position, or it can be evidence that is intuitive and incommunicable. How could it be that, for example, two intelligent and well informed philosophers are able to disagree with each other on the same subject while being aware of and understanding his or her opponent 's argument but yet failing to agree with it? Both are provided with the same amount of objective evidence for each position but each philosopher

Historians across the world have pondered over the idea of American exceptionalism. In Seymour Martin Lipset’s “American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword” and Ian Tyrrell’s “Is America Exceptional?” spoke of the debated topic of American exceptionalism. Exceptionalism is an idea in which a nation does not conform to the normal ways of life and history. Historians claim America is exceptional when comparing it to other nations. Lipset discusses America as a place that is exceptional but describes how being exceptional has both positive and negative effects.

This paper will attempt to summarize and explain the essay How to Argue about Disagreement: Evaluative Diversity and Moral Realism by John M. Doris and Alexandra Plakias. They claim that moral realism has a problem with its assertion that all disagreement is superficial, and would not persist under ideal conditions. They cite an experiment by Nisbett and Cohen in 1996 where there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between northern and southern white American men surrounding acceptable violence. Moral realism is the philosophical idea that morality is based in objective fact.

According to Hills (1980), the differences between the absolutist and the relativist views of deviance are vast with very few points in agreement. The absolutist perspective, shared by the majority, suggests deviance is a black-or-white, cut-and-dried definition which permeates the entire being of a person and allows for no mobility out of the deviant status; whereas, the relativist perspective, shared by many sociologists, communicates a shades-of-grey, humanity exposing explanation of deviance and allows for a multi-faceted look at individual categories of deviance in relation to personality (Hills, 1980). Deviance by definition is behavior based on a specific set of values; however, the difference in perspectives reveals the heart of the subject. Basically, the absolutist argues deviance is a part of the person; conversely, the relativist assumes deviance is taught via the culture, society, or group they belong.