Gaia :: Profile Comments

Report | 06/22/2013 11:33 pm

Nothing much man, just started my summer vacation
mostly just spending it playing with friends on xbl goofing around lol

how about you man? whats new with you?

Report | 06/20/2013 2:49 am

Date My Draugr

sup dog?

Report | 05/13/2013 10:44 am

bji

Report | 03/30/2013 11:17 pm

bji

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Report | 03/04/2013 4:21 pm

bji

1. The point she is trying to make is there is always someone who is going to judge another person culture.
2.Cultural relativism has morals that are culturally wide. A persons culture where killing female infants is thought to be acceptable because it benefits the culture would be a cultural relativist and believes the acts are appropriate. Ethical relativist would also think it is okay as long as their own personal beliefs feel that way. It would only be thought that way because people believe it is okay.
3.An ethical relativist believes that their morals are based on own beliefs and because there is not a universal moral code.
4.
5. The 5 problems that Rosenstand list are :
No criticism or praise for other cultures
Majority rule
What is a majority
What is a culture
Can tolerance be a universal value
Professed or actual morality
6.In "Flat Earth"Rosenstand points out that ethnical relativism can be 100% adoptable and is faulty.
7.Furrow judges relativists because they cannot make moral judgements
8.It's not convincing and contradicts itself.
9. I believe know one should ever be tortured. Its not morally right.

Report | 03/04/2013 4:20 pm

bji

1. Explain the main point Mary Midgely is making in "Trying Out One's New Sword" about moral isolationism.

In every set culture, there is going to be differences. Every culture has its own set customs and traditions that may be loads different to what we are used to. But because we are different from people of other cultures we often have a hard time understanding why others do what they do. We find many of their traditions taboo and make judgements because of our differences. But is it okay for us to pass these judgements if we do not understand that set culture, no, it's not. So when it comes to making judements of other people from other cultures, we have to develop an understanding of others, as well as understanding ourselves and our own culture as well.

What is her point about the example of the Samurai warrior who slices people's bodies to try out his sword?

According to ancient Japanese samurai tradition, when a warrior was given a new sword, to be able to accept the quality of the sword and the strength of the man, the samurai was required to bisect someone in one clean slice. To many western people, this act may be seen as brutal, and horrible, but it is unfair to pass such a thought because they do not understand ancient Japanese culture as well. A Westener could easily see this act as an "ok" thing to do as long as, the person being bisected is well aware and alright with this action being done. A fair judegement was able to be made once the person was able to apply their culture into deciding that the other culture's action was ok. We make decisions on who is "good" and who is "bad" by considering our moral beliefs as well.

How is this notion of moral isolationism connected to ethical relativism?

As state above, the person was able to pass their final judgement of the samurai by considering their culture's ethics and the other culture's ethics. Even though both cultures are completely different from one another, the westerner was able to make a fair judement through ethical relativism. Though killing someone is never a "good" thing to do, it is more morally acceptable because it was an agreement by both adults that the person being bisected was well aware and alright with the decision being made.

What do the acts of "trying out one's new sword" and genital mutilation (as described in "Possessing the Secret of Joy" in the primary readings in your text) have in common in connection with the problem of ethical relativism?

By ear both actions are deemed as "bad" but with a deeper understanding of why they do what they do, more acceptance appears. The problem with ethical relativism is that within your own culture there may be rules or morals you don't agree with.

Ethical relativists typically don't even see themselves as having the right to judge another culture, as that culture has no right to judge them.

Let's say you live in a country where abortion is the 'wrong' thing to do, and the other culture believe that as well, but you, yourself see abortion as alright. A common problem is that there is "majority rule", which may conflict with what you believe, your society believes, and what another culture believe.

Could an ethical relativist say that such acts were, in any absolute sense, wrong? Why or why not?

No, in no sense is there the absolute belief of what is indeed, right, to the fullest. Every human's belief is, in the long run, an "equal" thought, and there is no written down, right and wrong. Many cultures follow similar moral codes, like 'don't kill'. Killing can even be passed as alright as long as there's some sort of "ok" reason to kill the person, such as self defense and so on. But just because most cultures have the moral of killing as a bad thing, doesn't mean that they are right, and cultures that contain people who kill each other are wrong. In many instances within own culture there are corrupt actions being done, and thousands of thousands of people get away with it every week. A