Week 4 Disc

Week4 Disc


Week4 Disc


Ipersonally believe that relative morality is an excuse forindividuals to do what they want without giving an explanation oranswering to anybody. On the other hand, universal morality is,usually, very strict and rigid, it gives people an idea of what isright and wrong at any place and without it value of pluralism wouldhave no direction. Universal morality advocates that what isethically right for one person is good for every person in one way oranother, irrespective of nationality or culture. On the other hand,moral relativism advocates that morals and ethics result fromnational, historical, or cultural settings (Boss, 2014). Hence, bythis logic, the 1800s slavery would not be considered ethically wrongsince it was a product of one`s culture, the same as terror attackshappening in the modern days. If a person ever wants to speak aboutethical standards, he or she cannot be a relativist.

Peoplewho had possession of slaves in the past did not believe that whatthey were doing ethically wrong, and the reality of relativismclarifies the reason they kept on doing what they did (INTELECOMIntelligent Telecommunications (Firm), 2013). Since nowadays it isnot right for individuals to own slaves, it means that it was notright then as well, paying a little respect to what individualsbelieved at the time. Universal morality or absolute truth, is morerigid better defined when compared to relative morality (Edel et al.,2007).


Theauthor to the response of this topic has a valid point. There is areality in ethical philosophy of relativism. The fact of relativismis what customarily made the author consider it as appealing sincepeople can easily relate to the specific ethical standards of theirrespective social setting. However, he/she should acknowledge thatpeople ought to draw a line on this issue of morality since differentpersons in different cultures have different values. One can verifythis by visiting different cultural societies.

Inthis case, there are no collective wrongs and rights in the authorschosen side of the argument. The concern with moral relativism isthat it lacks conventional ethics. For instance, in the example thathe/she provided, or to be specific, in crimes settings such as theftand murder, the crime can be considered right if a criminal can showthat the incident is supported by his/her cultural beliefs (Boss,2014).

Ethicaltheories are comprised of &quotshould&quot statements whereas&quotshould not&quot statements highlight immoral acts. As anethical theory, relativism of any sort has two significant issues.The first is accepting that every society has different sub-cultures,and some people are members of more than one culture. Hence, in theend people “dissolve” their cultures to form one, a universalculture, since no one`s culture is the same as anybody else’s.

Thesecond issue is solving a new problem facing the community. Forinstance, in a situation where a problem is very severe and a societydoes not have any ethical theory that can guide people how to act canforce people to acknowledge the limitations of relativism. Sincerelativism is an impression that universal moral norms do not exist,there can be no advice of any kind to help solve the problem. &quotActhow you believe appropriate&quot and &quotAct how society believesis right&quot are universal moral customs hence, a relativistcannot accept them. At this point, the author of the response and thegeneral public have to embrace universal morality since it offers agenuine moral theory compared to the limited moral relativism.


Thewriter of the second response takes a bright and perceptive positionby arguing that morality is universal and it everyone can tell rightfrom wrong. The person shows that he clearly understands the subjecton morality by asserting that universal morality can also be alteredfrom culture to culture, and people may have different views about acircumstance than another individual from a different culture.

Theauthor develops a precise position on the issue through hisconvincing arguments. On further illustrations to show the weak pointof relativism, the author asserts that Moral Relativism is theposition that ethical or moral propositions do not replicateobjective and/or universal moral facts, however, instead they makeclaims relative to personal, cultural, historical or socialcircumstances. These justifications provided by the author answer whyhis views were represented by universal morality.


Boss,J. (2014). Think:Critical thinking for everyday life (2nd edition).Mc Graw-Hill Education.

Edel,A., Flower, E., &amp O`Connor, F. W. (2007). Morality,philosophy, and practice: Historical and contemporary readings andstudies.New York: Random House.

INTELECOMIntelligent Telecommunications (Firm). (2013). Ismorality relative?.Pasadena, Calif: INTELECOM.