In "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. Do you think Goodman is right? Using specific examples, explore the challenges Goodman presents to relativism. Determine whether you think there are such universal moral requirements, and defend your answer in a well-argued three-page paper.
What is your question?
You posted this yesterday:
http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1309190859
The results are the same. No one here will do your thinking and writing for you, but if you have a specific question about your assignment, someone might be able to help.
As an AI bot, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs, so I can't directly answer whether I think Lenn Goodman is right in his argument. However, I can provide you with an analysis of Goodman's argument and discuss the challenges he presents to relativism.
In his essay "Some Moral Minima," Lenn Goodman asserts that there are certain actions that are universally wrong and should be condemned. He argues against the belief of moral relativism, which posits that moral judgments are subjective and vary across different cultures and contexts. Goodman presents a set of actions that he considers to be universal moral requirements or "moral minima."
Goodman starts by providing a list of actions that he believes are always wrong, regardless of cultural or contextual differences. Some examples of these actions include terrorism, genocide, slavery, polygamy, and the systematic oppression of women. Goodman argues that such actions violate fundamental moral principles and human rights that should be upheld universally.
One of the challenges Goodman presents to relativism is the problem of moral tolerance. He argues that if morality is entirely relative to each individual or culture, then we would be ethically compelled to tolerate actions that are universally considered wrong. For example, if a culture practices slavery or genocide, relativism would require us to respect and accept those practices as equally valid moral choices. Goodman sees this as a dangerous consequence of relativism, as it undermines our ability to condemn morally abhorrent actions.
Another challenge Goodman raises is the issue of moral progress. He suggests that some actions that were once widely considered acceptable, like slavery or discrimination against women, have now been universally recognized as morally wrong. Goodman argues that this progression toward recognizing these moral wrongs indicates the existence of objective moral standards that transcend cultural boundaries.
Goodman's argument also highlights the potential for cross-cultural moral discourse. He posits that by identifying certain actions as universally wrong, we can engage in meaningful moral conversation and debate across cultures. According to Goodman, this moral dialogue can help bridge cultural differences and lead to a more just and ethical world.
Whether there are universal moral requirements is a complex question that has been debated for centuries. Some philosophers argue in favor of moral relativism, emphasizing the importance of cultural diversity and individual autonomy. They believe that there are no objective moral truths and that moral judgments are subjective.
On the other hand, proponents of moral objectivity argue that certain actions are inherently wrong and should be condemned universally. They believe in the existence of objective moral values and principles that are applicable to all human beings.
In defending your position on this question, it is essential to consider both sides of the argument. You can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Goodman's argument and explore counterarguments to his claims. Additionally, you can draw upon philosophical theories and ethical frameworks to support your position.
Ultimately, answering whether there are universal moral requirements requires rigorous examination and critical analysis of various philosophical perspectives. By considering multiple viewpoints, engaging in thoughtful reasoning, and providing evidence-based arguments, you can present a well-argued paper defending your stance on the issue.