ction on behalf of Rachels. That is, how would Rachels reply to the counter-exam
ID: 3470459 • Letter: C
Question
ction on behalf of Rachels. That is, how would Rachels reply to the counter-example? Finally, in a second short paragraph, who do you think has the strongest argument -- Rachels or the provider of the counter-example? The idea here is that we're trying to determine whether relativism is the right moral theory, despite its dangerous problems, or, alternatively, if it can be ultimately rejected. Your last post is due by Sunday at 9pm. Again, while I encourage you to use the spell check feature of your word processing software, please don't "attach": simply copy/paste your post into the discussion box. Peer review replies should be 300+ words, and include a "references" or "works cited" section.
Explanation / Answer
Moral Relativism in my opinion is a theory that should be ultimately rejected as it poses dangerous problems, and gives the the bandwidth of virtue to opinions that aren't based in fact but fallacious reasoning.
Moral Relativism tends to deviate from the standardized norms, and as a results gives birth to error zones.
For instance, in an exam, the examiner judging the answers on the basis of the relativity of students answer would be wrong. Deviating from the standard scoring key and judging as well as scoring answers on the basis of other students answers can lead to lapse in judgment.
This is mere Relativism, when judgements are made on moral grounds with the the tool of relativity, dangerous outcomes are produced.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.