Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism is a kind of thought that everyone should not judge others since they have their own morals or way of rule.

Some more subtle arguments are that of cavemen or sailors on the high seas. If the cavemen or the sailors violate the law from the “civilised world”, they should be pardon or forgiven since they are forced to submit themselves to the “savage rule of nature”.

Such philosophy is not justifiable since we still need to decide whether one thing is wrong or not. If Moral Relativism can be justified, then there are nothing that we can judge since nothing could be wrong.

Links to this page
  • Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?
    Having a consent is like having a permission. If the thing do upon on him is agreed by him, then such act is viewed just by him. However, I do not think consent has any moral groundwork. It is merely a 202202242036.

    There is another doubt on Kantian moral principle. How then could we tell that such moral law, coming out from individuals will be objective? How does it not fell under 202202242036? This is because humans share the universal capacity of reason among themselves undifferentiated regardless of contingent and empirical ends. This means that there is no difference in exercising that capability of reason among humans. All reasonable humans will come out with the one and same moral law.

#philosophy #moral #ethic