Let me begin with a definition of 'moral relativism'. It is the acceptance that there are no standards of what is right or wrong that apply to all people at all times in history. For example, the ability for one group to pass judgment on any situation, when the same situation would be treated differently by another group. Thus showing that different persons have different perspectives on what is morally right or wrong. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth, moral subjectivism is therefore the opposite of moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. It is a subset of moral objectivism, and stands in contrast to situational ethics, which hold that the morality of acts depends on the context of the act.
English: , Prussian philosopher. Português: , fil...
English: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Russian writer an...
From http://hypernews.ngdc.noaa.govAccording to moral absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. This essay will discuss the main moral quandaries associated with moral relativism. The second part of the essay willThe moral relativist claims that individual acts are right or wrong depending on the nature of the person from which they originate, and that what is considered morally right or wrong must be seen in context, depending on such things as the goals, wants, beliefs, history and environment of the individual under discussion. I consider that some individual acts of right or wrong do not depend on the nature of the society from which they are from. They are simply right or wrong and should be universally accepted such as 'treat others as you like to be treated'. Moral relativism is the...