1:08 AM ocean.instructure.com l AT&T; Moral absolutists get very upset by this v

Question

1:08 AM ocean.instructure.com l AT&T; Moral absolutists get very upset by this view, for logically is implies that slavery could be moral, if some culture somewhere generally accepted it as moral. Absolutists tell us that slavery was not morally acceptable when it was a widespread practice, any more than the world was flat at the time that this was a common belief. The principle of absolutism says that just as people were at one time ignorant about the shape of the world, they were also ignorant of the moral wrongness of slavery. The "moral fact is just as true for the absolutist as the "empirical fact. They are both facts that can be discovered by the light of reason OCEAN Account Dashboard The relativist say to this that calling cultural traditions that are different from ours "ignorant" is an example of ethnocentrism, which is the practice of judging other cultures by the standards of one's own culture. For the relativist it is the ethnocentrist who is ignorant, or at least narrow minded, because he or she cannot accept that other cultures can have their own truth, just as our culture has its own truth. And this can lead to the imperialistic practice of one culture imposing its traditions and beliefs on another culture in the name of "morality. ourses Calendar 21 Inbox Where do you stand in this debate? It is one thing to say that "some traditions and beliefs are culturally relative, such as the practice of eating with your fingers, or the belief that tattoos look cool. But how about the practice of slavery, or wife beating, or having sex with young kids? Is our culture's rejection of these things an example of morall progress toward truth, or just cultural change, no different, in principle, than the change in cultural attituders toward tattooing that has occurred over the past 50 years? Help Moral Egoism Moral Egoism (often referred to simply as "egoism) is an example of a consequentialist type of moral theory. This means that a Moral Egoist will focus on is the consequences of rules, laws, policies, and actions, and not the intentions behind the formation of these things. They tell us that a moral person uses reason to examine whether or not a particular action, rule, law or policy promotes or detracts from the egoist's self-interest. And if an action does nothing to promote one's self interest, we have no moral duty to perform this action. Simply put, good actions are those that benefit me; bad actions are those that limit or interfere with benefits to me; and actions which have no effect on my interests one way or another are morally neutral to me Is this true? Is it the case that the only moral duty we have is to ourselves? Natural Law Theory Natural law theory is a type of moral theory that claims that a correct moral action is one which conforms to an absolute and universal moral standard. k-

Explanation / Answer

I would not adhere to the viewpoint of moral egoism. As human beings, we present a species capable of self awareness and rational thought, and despite having self-preservation impulses, we have obligations to other members of our species as well as others. In a world where every one acts only as per their own selfish impulses would be far from harmonious and would see the suffering of many and the flourishing of a very few.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 1
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.