Moral Relativism by Ms Ayub https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2 Moral Relativism en-us 2017-09-14 17:14:52 UTC 2025-09-29 15:20:16 UTC hello@padlet.com List one pro and one con of moral relativism using specific examples from the article or video. Connect with the concepts of Truth, Moral Rules, Rights, Ethnocentrism. irm_ayub https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323675314 2022-10-03 12:48:04 UTC https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323675314 Pros & Cons https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323684670 "We are relativists about etiquette in the sense that, we take the correct absolute norm to be “we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts.”"
We set informal rules called etiquette due to what we consider correct, it can give us order.
On the other hand, moral relativism is fueled by personal opinions. We communicate what we believe, our beliefs often stemming from personal experiences and teachings. The example of eating beef is driven by the justification of the correct opinion, those being religion and lifestyle.
Sunjot & Vedant]]> 2022-10-03 12:53:18 UTC https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323684670 Disagree with the Author! (Con for Non-Relativism) https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323687721 The article’s author says there can be an objective truth if we re-frame the normative question into an objective one. I disagree with him completely. Some things like “raising interest rates” will always be normative and will always have people on both sides of the argument.

Coming to the other question: You should be able to believe everything and anything you want (no one should control your thoughts at all) but you should only act in the best interest of “humankind.” (Ie. whatever gives the most collective benefit as a society even if it is detrimental to you)

Akhil, Praneet, Dichyant]]> 2022-10-03 12:55:06 UTC https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323687721 Jaylin, Aryan, Saksham, Agnibha and Jattan https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323695989 Pro: Moral relativism refers to the idea that there is no absolute set of truths for right or wrong. By accepting this concept, we are able to become more empathetic and understanding as we are more willing to accept other cultures 

Con: "The argument is significant because it shows that we should not rush to give up on absolute moral facts, mysterious as they can sometimes seem, for the world might seem even more mysterious without any normative vocabulary whatsoever."
Without any absolute truths within the moral code, we lose a level of certainty in our world. 


]]> 2022-10-03 12:59:46 UTC https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323695989 keesha, ashlene, vasharna, bhumika https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323697038 Relativism is often idealized as you are able to see many perspectives from different cultures/societies. Although it is important to be aware of cultural norms and practices, relativism can often be extreme, justifiying all acts — hence, making it difficult to set rules within society. But, when using relativism based upon an absolute norm, it can be seen as positive. For example, etiquette varies depending on culture, but all etiquette is based on the absolute norm of not upsetting one's host. 


]]> 2022-10-03 13:00:12 UTC https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323697038 Pros and Cons https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323701576 Pro: allows for a vast variety of cultures and practices (eg. this can be seen within the Beef example; the two statements (eating beef is wrong and eating beef is permissable) can co-exist within society

Con: everything is relative; if all opinions and actions are seen as tolerable, there is no possibility of taking higher moral action (eg. this can also be seen within the Witches example as many would consider killing witches just only if they truly believed witches are bad, however, it is still considered morally wrong at a higher code of ethics)

Dilnazz, Kaashifa and Mehak
]]> 2022-10-03 13:01:11 UTC https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2323701576 Elvina, Lovejeet https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2326083513 Pro: Moral relativism isn't objective - there's no right or wrong rather its dependent on so many different things such as the local evironment, one's own thoughts, etc. 

Con: The con of moral relativism is it's pro. Since right or wrong isn't based off of set rules or set opinions, what's wrong for almost everyone, can be right for someone - this creates conflict.

An example of this in the article is slurping. If a British person is visiting China, they might not slurp their food. This is disrespectful and "wrong" to the people of China but it is respectful and "correct" to the person that's visiting from Britain. We can see how this relativism can therefore create conflict.]]> 2022-10-04 16:39:10 UTC https://padlet.com/irm_ayub/3wmhj8uwbds2/wish/2326083513