Here’s my third attempt at philosophy. This one on absolutism vs. relativism.
Can it be determined that some actions are right and other actions wrong? Can one culture’s traditions be morally inferior to that of another? For example, a western person may look on in strange curiosity when a Vietnamese family gets together to celebrate the ngay gio or death anniversary of a loved one. At the same time, a Vietnamese may wonder why an American makes such a fuss about their child’s birthday. Is one better than the other? Are they equally valid due to different cultural upbringings? Are they both actually pointing out the same moral principals in just different ways?
Relativism and absolutism are terms used by philosophers when discussing morality and society. Relativism is described as each society having its’ own set of principles based on their culture and beliefs. As the example in the previous paragraph shows, it is easy to see that different societies value different moral practices. This is called social relativism. Ethical relativism builds on this principle by stating that any society’s ultimate moral principle is as valid as any other society’s principle (Burr and Goldinger 180-181). This sets up a crucial conflict between ethical relativism and ethical absolutism which states that there is only one correct ultimate principle or set of principles. This philosophical conflict has many ramifications in how someone might view abortion, punishment, education or the environment
In the modern world, the buzzword democracy emanates loudly throughout the world. Leaders claim that democracy is every country’s destiny and possibly even their divine right. Philosophers look at state and society and try to ask the big questions about the nature of democracy and its underlying political philosophy. They wonder about claims of one form of government being morally superior to that of another (Burr and Goldinger 269). For example, in the often used statement “…with liberty and justice for all”, a philosopher might try to define liberty. Can it mean different things to different people? Can there be limits to liberty? Why? What is justice and can it really apply to everyone equally?
All of these questions lead to many very important issues which are discussed and debated every day. Can there be true justice when some people are rich and others are poor? Some say that an equal and just society should provide equal opportunity for everyone to succeed. Others would take it a step further and say that equality of outcome is what is needed. Everyone actually needs to be the same intellectually and materially for there to be true equality. When looking at the world, Nagel wonders if anything can and/or should be done about the tremendous economic disparity between the very poor and very rich nations (79). The questions framed by philosophers are profound and difficult, but the practical application of the suggested answers to these questions result in very real consequences to our global community.