After reading your classmates’ threads, choose one to which you will respond, then write a reply that interacts with your classmate’s thread and presents a well-reasoned alternative to his or her approach to the issue. You do not have to defend a position that is diametrically opposed to your classmate’s position, but you do need to either defend a position that is significantly different than his/hers or defend the same position in a very different way. If possible, you must reply to a classmate to whom no one else has yet replied. Treat your classmate’s opinion with sensitivity and respect.
This is a university-level writing assignment. Therefore it must be carefully proofread, free of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Do not use slang, emoticons, or abbreviations (as if you are texting or sending an email to a friend).
Your reply must be 500–600 words. You will be penalized for falling short or exceeding the word count. Any quotes or information used from sources other than yourself (including your classmate’s thread) must be cited using footnotes in current Turabian format and will not count towards the total word count.
Respond to this:
I do not believe that ethical relativism is correct. Ethical relativism is the idea that any thought or idea can be right or wrong based on a person or group of peoples’ decisions to make it moral or immoral. (Jones, 2017) If you look at the idea that relativism has no way to be objective (moral subjectivism), you will see that it can easily be a matter of one person deciding that something is moral or immoral because it suits their life at the moment. For example, if a woman is pregnant and not able to financially support a child or it will interfere with her career, she could decide that she finds is morally alright to have an abortion. Relativism allows for people of groups to decide without much validation, what they believe. However, for something to be ethical by definition it should not just be a decision but a decision with purpose behind it.
The other issue I find with ethical relativism comes in the idea of tolerance. Ethical Relativism tells us we must practice tolerance as a moral value. (Jones, 2017) However, being tolerant, while a great value to have, can become a conflict of other more essential moral values. I know of a woman, born in the 1940’s who was brought up to believe that Caucasian people should not marry non-Caucasian people. While this was the cultural construct of the 1940’s and 1950’s, it has since been brought to attention that this is a very immoral way of thinking. God created all mankind in his own image. So, if we are to be tolerant of her view because relativism is a correct way of thinking, then are we not disobeying God and our own moral obligation to try to set her straight in her thinking. After all, racism has been found to be a profoundly immoral construct. God tells us in Matthew 28:19,” Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (New International Version) If we follow the definition of tolerance in every case (which is the permission of an attitude of difference in opinion), we may be disobeying God’s commands by remaining quiet and not showing a person how their idea of what is right, or moral is incorrect by God’s word.
Ethical Relativism bases its ideas on the conclusions that morals are a cultural construct and that there are no absolutes. (Jones, 2017) But if that is the case than robbery could be considered moral. If someone feels justified in stealing because they cannot hold a job and are needing something, then they would have the “justification” needed to make it moral in their own mind. However, theft is known to be an absolute immoral act. While it would not be universal, because some believe they are morally justified in the act, it is actually that they are wrong in their thinking. Therefore, Ethical Relativism would not be correct and should not be tolerable in this case.