Consider a specific moral question which might make it difficult to accept the relativist's response. State the moral issue involved, and provide an explanation as to why you think a relativist might have problem giving a justified response to it
Please note that no one here will do your work for you. However, we will be happy to read over whatever you come up with and make suggestions and/or corrections.
Please post what you think.
Kurt Mossler (2008) states; “Relativism offer alternatives to traditional theories of ethics.” There is one question that I would have a difficult time accepting accordance to the relativist response. This question would be: Should soldiers, cops, executioners, and doctors be consider as killers even though they do it in order to protect and help society? According to the text the relativist response would be yes, soldiers, cops, executioners, doctors, and executioners are still consider to be murders and that is unlawful. I think the relativist might have a problem giving a justified response because this question can go both ways. There is not wrong or right answer. Sometimes a person does not have a choice to kill and sometimes it just happens without warning. For example, a doctor operates on a patient that have heart problems and during the surgery something happens that unexpected the patient dies.
One moral question that might pose difficulties for a relativist is the issue of capital punishment. This moral dilemma involves questioning whether it is morally justifiable for a society to execute individuals as a form of punishment for certain crimes. A relativist might have difficulty providing a justified response to this question due to the inherent clash between relativism and the concept of universal human rights.
Relativism is a moral viewpoint that suggests ethical standards vary based on individual preferences, cultural beliefs, or societal norms. This means that what is considered morally right or wrong can differ from person to person or from one culture to another. The relativist perspective argues against the existence of universal moral principles and instead emphasizes the importance of cultural or personal context when determining the morality of an action.
However, when it comes to capital punishment, there are concerns that relativism may struggle to offer a satisfactory justification. The topic raises fundamental questions about the value and inviolability of human life, as well as the potential for irreversible harm caused by the state. By its nature, capital punishment involves the intentional taking of a person's life as punishment for a crime, which goes against the concept of universal human rights that are often considered inherent.
For a relativist, it can be challenging to reconcile the variation of cultural views on capital punishment with the question of whether it is morally justifiable to end someone's life as a form of punishment. While one culture or society might consider capital punishment acceptable, another may see it as a violation of the fundamental right to life.
In this case, a relativist may struggle to provide a justified response, as they cannot appeal to universally shared moral principles that would condemn or condone capital punishment. Instead, they would have to focus on the particular cultural, historical, and contextual factors that shape different societies' views on the matter. However, this can lead to a relativistic dilemma, where conflicting cultural beliefs might not provide a coherent and universally acceptable justification for or against capital punishment.
This moral issue highlights one of the challenges faced by relativism when confronted with questions that involve grave consequences and the clash between cultural relativism and universal human rights. It calls for a deeper examination of the limits and shortcomings of relativism in addressing certain moral dilemmas.