Essay on Moral Relativism
Moral relativism (ethical relativism) is a moral position, which comes from the fact that all possible moral standards and evaluation criteria is quite relative and equivalent (exactly-not-valuable) because there is no absolute moral standards system or absolute criterion. It assumes that there is no absolute, universal good and evil, there is only relative and local concepts, within specific societies and historical periods, and moral systems. The one is not better and not worse than another is, because there is no criterion by which they could be assessed, as all criteria are relative.
People tend to have ethical claims to each other. People tend to judge their contemporaries as well as people who lived during the other eras. However, anyone who has any ethical claims thereby asserts the reality of the law that the accused must abide, but he have not. We can’t say “N is wrong” without appealing to some criteria of the right; If we show the same anger, outrage, moral indignation against this man and his deeds, we understand that violations of the law, especially serious, worthy of indignation and anger.
I often come across with the proclamation of moral relativism – the assertion that objective truth, including objective ethical truths do not exist and everybody decides for himself what is right and what is not. But then, by general relativity, any ethical moral claims to anyone – whether it be Diego de Landa or just a network buddy, are simply hypocritical. Within the framework of relativism, we can say that such things I do not like, but you cannot say that they are objectively bad. There are no objective criteria, and our subjective criteria of other people without obligation. No one is obliged to follow your subjective preferences. If morality is a matter of taste, there is no one to share your tastes. Angrily rebuking someone for his bad deeds or offences is just as ridiculous as with the same pathos accuse him that he disagrees with, for example, your tastes in music.
An often repeating argument by the moral relativism supporters that belief in one truth has led to the Inquisition, intolerance, etc., is based on the hypocrisy of this kind. This argument comes from the fact that intolerance is objectively bad, and we are all obliged to acknowledge it as bad, to be full of indignity about it, etc. However, in moral relativism there are no objectively bad things; If you don’t like intolerance, it is your problem, deal with your preferences, which no one shall be obliged to share with you.
So, when a proponent of moral realism is judging another, he appeals to the law and thus recognizes its reality.All free essay examples and term paper samples you can find online are completely plagiarized. Don't use them as your own academic papers! If you need unique essays, term papers or research projects of superior quality, don't hesitate to hire experts at EssayLib who will write any custom paper for you. A professional team of essay writers is available 24/7 for immediate assistance: