In simple words, relativism is the thought that all beliefs and self-truths are just an opinion that cannot be proven true or false. It is simply the thought that your beliefs are no greater or lesser than mine, we are equal. Knowledge is determined by specific qualities of the observer including age, ethnicity, gender, and cultural conditioning. But is relativism a reliable source when looking into life as a whole. For example, based on the thoughts of relativism Jesus and Osama Bin Laden are equal. I believe that relativism isn’t a reliable argument when talking about issues in the world today. Now, in terms of relativism being introduced to society I believe that a majority of people would adopt the concept automatically, while some would stick to their previous beliefs. Some might already believe and live by this concept while others might just adopt this concept because they don’t like the thought of conflict, then of course there are those that stick to their beliefs no matter what. I feel like relativism is appealing to some people because they just like the thought of everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that they can believe what they want. It is said that America is land of the free and home of the brave, that all people have the right to free speech. But what if you “know” that what people believe is wrong and what you believe is right who’s to say which option is true and which is false? This is why relativism is one of the most heavily debated topics today.
One of the biggest objections to the belief of relativism is the thought that we are all equal as humans and by our opinions. When again I state Jesus and Osama Bin Laden are nowhere near equal in any way. We understand that Jesus was pure and holy, while ...
... middle of paper ...
...Confucius was right on the idea that without learning good manners many idea that started out being acts of kindness would be wasted on bad character. It is important that we hold these truths so that we cannot make the mistake for our acts of kindness to become a waste.
Works Cited
Soccio, Douglas J. "Philosophy and the Search for Wisdom." Archetypes of Wisdom. 7th ed. Bellmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995. 11+. Print
Jonathan Judaken. Review of Weikart, Richard, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. H-Ideas, H-Net Reviews. June, 2005.
Soccio, Douglas J. "The Philosopher-King:Plato." Archetypes of Wisdom. 7th ed. Bellmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995. 121+. Print.
Soccio, Douglas J. "The Asian Sages: Lao-Tzu, Confucius, and Buddha." Archetypes of Wisdom. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1995. 23+. Print
Plato. "Phaedrus." The Works of Plato. Trans. B. Jowett. New York: The Dial Press, n.d.
"Plato." Literature of the Western World, Volume 1. 5th edition by Brian Wilkie and James Hurt. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2001. 1197-1219.
24 Amore, Roy C. and Julia Ching. The Buddhist Tradition. In Willard G. Oxtoby, Ed. World Religions: Eastern Traditions. P. 221
A person, no matter where they live or what kind of history they have, always has and always will come across someone who does not believe the same way that they do. This is plainly seen in Phil Washburn’s Philosophical Dilemmas and as a result the main source of information will stem from this text concerning morals. Philosophers are most known for their work of arguing about morals and what is wrong or right however, what laymen do not understand is that they do not focus on the question of moral but rather whether or not the judgment of the morals of others is right or wrong. It is here that the idea of relativists and absolutists is born and men are challenged to take a side. According to the essays in Washburn’s text, a relativist is someone who believes in Moral Relativism. This person believes that morality is dependent upon a culture and morals themselves are defined as “a set of rules” that the people of this particular culture abide by. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the absolutist who believes that regardless of the culture, there are some morals—not a “set of rules” but the difference between right and wrong— that apply to all people. Relativists and absolutists prove to be polar opposites when it comes to their stance on morality and after analyzing both the idea of an absolutist is the most plausible.
Plato. The Republic. Trans. Sterling, Richard and Scott, William. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985.
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Smith, Huston. The Illustrated World's Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1994. Print.
Plato defines wisdom as the constant pursuit of knowledge in his dialogue The Republic Plato illustrates his idea of forms through an analogy, the allegory of the cave. In this dialogue, Plato exemplifies wisdom and inadvertently creates an analogy that is applicable to modern day Christianity.
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
Plato. The Republic. Trans. Richard W. Sterling and William C. Scott. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
"Science as Salvation: Weimar Eugenics, 1919–1933." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Council, 10 June 2013. Web. 27 May 2014.
Plato, and G. M. A. Grube. Five Dialogues. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2002. Print.
Plato is one of the most iconic authors in the history of philosophy. Even today, his words live strong in modern thinking and society. He was a highly spoken citizen of Athens (Kraut, 2013). His input in the politics and the society of Athenian life made him a major player in the success of democracy in ancient civilization (Kraut, 2013). Being one of the first real “philosophers” in history, Plato was looked up to by scholars of that time, as well as current philosophers of our time. His most influential work of writing is The Republic where he makes many assumptions while also including ideas and conversations with other thinkers of the time like Socrates and Thrasymachus (Kraut, 2013). Current and future thinkers will forever interpret Plato’s work for centuries to come.
With this in mind, cultural relativism does have limits. As each culture develops its personal moral system, one can push the principle of cultural relativism to extremes. For example, taking an extreme relativist position, one cannot oppose any culturally-accepted forms of homicide, such as infanticide (Textbook 301). Therefore, the moral complexity of taking a cultural relativist stance on various issues has been increasingly
In conclusion, people should not condone the philosophy of moral relativism because it allows people to freely interpret the meaning of right and wrong, makes people lose self-control, and conditions our society to be subjective. Although being able to freely express yourself of your own morals is a good thing, we should learn to contain it more instead of subjecting it towards others and society. Losing self-control brings lives apart from others and not learning how to control it is a big risk. Society shouldn’t condition us to be subjected to be more subjected but for us to find the truth of moral