Write an essay for each questions, so the total will be two essays.

Write in your opinion “NO OUT SOURCE” do not write sources

The first question should be longer essay

(First question)

Consider the crimes of rape, pedophilia, or torture (non-consensual) for sexual gratification. Are such acts wrong in themselves or by their consequences? If so, can you square the wrongness of these acts with moral relativism?

Consider such crimes from a subjectivist point of view, then a conventionalist point of view. Can either form of moral relativism square with the belief that such acts are objectively wrong? Consider such acts from the standpoint of Gilbert Harmon: whether rape e.g. is wrong depends of the “agreements of particular groups”. So, e.g. rape is wrong in one group, but under the agreement of another group it’s maybe ok. So, if you were a member of a group who believed that rape is wrong, but visited a group that believes it is ok, would you commit rape among that people?

Put differently, if it is morally permissible for one group to do an action, and no standards exist beyond what different groups happen to believe, then why shouldn’t you feel free to try it? After all, how can you criticize their view simply because it is different? Can your choice to try it, be defended in a non-circular way, or a way that does commit you to a contradiction as soon as you act? How would Hospers handle such actions? How might Pojman?

(Second question)

Consider the principle of reciprocity, which we have found in every moral philosophy that we have studied this term except for Harmon. Assume that this principle is merely relative, and not as Pojman claims, objectively binding. Imagine explaining how a human society anywhere, could function without the principle of reciprocity.

Does such a society exist? Could it exist? Explain. Moral Relativism Essays

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Moral Relativism

Introduction

Moral relativism is the idea that all values, beliefs, and behaviors are relative to one’s culture. That is, how one acts in a given situation depends on what your cultural norms dictate. Moral Relativism can be compared to scientific determinism or existentialism in that it denies that there are any absolute truths about right and wrong; everything is culturally relative. Moral Relativism has become popular among many people who believe moral absolutism “isn’t necessary.” If you ask them why they believe this, however, they will usually say something along the lines of: “People aren’t perfect so it doesn’t matter what I do because everyone else makes mistakes too.” But does this really hold any weight?

What is moral relativism?

Moral relativism is a theory that there are no absolute moral standards. It’s the idea that what is considered right and wrong depends on the situation, or cultural context.

For example, you may think it’s wrong to kill someone in self-defense (according to your personal moral code), but that same action would be acceptable if it was done by someone with whom you have a long history of friendship/relationship and trust. According to this view, there would be no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ when it comes down to individual cases; only ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ within broader groupings based on shared values such as those established by society at large

Moral Relativism is not just a philosophy

Moral relativism is a philosophy that says that morality is relative to the culture or society in which you live. This can be a good thing (if your culture’s morals make sense), but it can also be really bad (if your culture’s morals don’t make sense).

Moral relativism is not just a philosophy; it’s also an approach to understanding human nature and what makes us good or bad. If we think of our world as made up of many different cultures, then we might assume that each culture has its own set of values and beliefs about how things should be done. But if all these different groups are equally valid ways of thinking about themselves and their surroundings—and if no one group has any special claim on truth—then perhaps there isn’t any way for us all to know where our own moral boundaries lie!

Moral Relativity

Moral relativism is the view that the truth of moral judgments does not depend on their correspondence with objective moral facts. In this context, “objective” means that moral judgments are true or false independent of anyone’s opinion about them.

The idea that there are no objective moral facts has been around for thousands of years, but it became a central part of philosophy after Immanuel Kant published his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in 1785. For Kantians (people who follow this theory), there are only two ways to make sense out of our decisions: either all humans can agree on what makes good behavior and bad behavior; or we have to appeal instead to some kind of godlike authority figure who knows what’s right for us even though no one else does

Moral Relativism and Human Nature

Moral relativism is not just a philosophy. It’s a way of life, and it can be found in every culture on Earth. Moral relativism means that there are no objective right or wrong answers to moral questions. Instead, each person must make their own decisions based on their own values and beliefs. There are no rules that apply universally—you can decide what’s right for you!

Moral relativism has nothing to do with human nature; instead, it’s merely an interpretation of how humans should live their lives (and what they could possibly mean by “right”). This means there are no absolutes in the world at all… except maybe when it comes down to which one would win between two teams competing against each other for dominance over another race/country/society.”

The Business of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is a philosophy that says that moral or ethical standards are not absolute but relative to individuals, cultures or situations.

Moral relativists believe that there is no absolute right or wrong way to live your life, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else. For example, if you believe that killing people in self defense is okay because you feel threatened by them then it’s justifiable under moral relativism because it doesn’t hurt anyone else and isn’t an unethical action (even though some people might disagree).

Moral Relativism and Crime

Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute moral values and that all cultures, religions, and societies have their own unique set of moral norms. This can be a good thing because it allows us to respect other people’s beliefs and lifestyles without judging them as being less valid than our own. However, when this philosophy is applied to crime (which involves breaking laws), it becomes problematic because crimes violate natural law—the laws of nature or God—not just cultural norms.

For example: murder is not illegal under most legal systems in America because it violates natural law by killing someone else directly rather than through an act like rape where one party does something harmful against another person’s body parts without consent from both parties involved in order for everything else about these scenarios would fall under different categories altogether according as how far down this slippery slope we go before reaching some sort of timeless truth?

Educational Consequences of Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism is not just a philosophy. It’s also a business, and it’s one that can have devastating consequences for our children. When we teach them to value their own subjective preferences over the objective truth of things, they grow up believing that there’s no such thing as right or wrong—only “your opinion.”

This lack of moral compass makes it easier for kids to justify cheating on tests and lying in order to get what they want (or need). Studies show that students who were taught through moral relativism during their formative years had higher rates of academic dishonesty later in life than those who were taught traditional values like honesty and hard work (1). In addition, this mindset makes people more likely to get involved in risky behavior like drinking alcohol excessively when underage—and these risky behaviors often lead back into using drugs later on down the road (2).

Takeaway:

Moral relativism is a philosophy that says there are no moral absolutes. It has many different meanings, but it’s easiest to think of it as the idea that all cultures and individuals have their own way of thinking about morality. For example, one person might see murder as wrong while another person might not care if someone else dies because they believe in taking life away from those who have too much (giving them more time on Earth). In this way, moral relativism can be seen as being based off one’s culture or religion—which may or may not be right depending on where you live!

Conclusion

Moral relativism is a philosophy that says there’s no right or wrong. It’s a worldview that says all cultures are equal, and no one culture has more value than another. This can lead to many problems because it causes us to not work as hard on things we don’t think have value in life. If people don’t care about anything then they won’t try hard enough on things they do care about like school or career goals because they won’t see how important those things are for living an effective life.