You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 3 (753 words)
Student’s Name: Professor’s Name: Course Title: Date: Morality is Not Relative Social diversity and dynamism embraces morality in different ways. In the view of these differences, morality can be referred to as habits that are socially approved (Pojman 406).
Moral definition by a society is highly dependent on the perception, attitudes and preferences of a society in the day to day interactions of people that make up that society. According to James Rachels, morality is not relative. Morality and resultant issues can be looked from different points of view. Rachels is well aware of this fact. In his discussion, cultural relativism is considered, alongside moral absolutism. The idea here is to point out the shortcomings associated with cultural relativism in the subject matter; morality. Use of real life examples enhances Rachels’ ideas, bringing out the natural and social picture that is easily applicable to societies. This is easy to understand and relate with, given the activities that define a given society. A good example used is that of infants and the explanation of how the society would fail to support itself following a cultural relativism application in that society. Specifically, people are socially responsible for bringing up infants under the best available conditions. If such social responsibilities were not a central focus of the society, then the survival of the infants could be threatened (Pojman 411). On the same note, the society regenerates itself through reproduction, replacing the dead with the newborns. Such a social activity occurs generally without the imposition of rules to govern it. ...
Not exactly what you need?