Get Full Essay Get access to this section to get all help you need with your essay and educational issues. Get Access Gandhi and Hitler: Plato viewed harmony as the salvation of the state and the individual, while division encouraged by the inconsistency of personal interests with those of the state is the devastation of the same Dunkle, The first man is Adolph Hitler.
How would you respond to what two others have told me [at the bottom]? Many Sociologists and Anthropologists point out the fact that individuals, as well as whole societies, sometimes disagree about moral issues Descriptive Fact. From this fact, some conclude that therefore, principles regarding moral right and wrong are purely relative, i.
Even if we do find moral disagreement, so what? It does not follow from the mere fact of disagreement about an issue that there is no objective truth regarding that issue. The mere fact of such disagreement does not prove that there is no objective truth on this issue.
So why should it be any different with respect to moral issues? The mere fact that people disagree about moral issues does not alone prove that there is no objective truth in morality. Suppose the Ethical Relativist insists that the mere fact of disagreement regarding the objectivity of moral principles does prove that ethical objectivism cannot be true, and that there is therefore no objective truth in morality.
In saying this, the ethical relativist is affirming the principle: For there is clearly no universal agreement regarding the truth of ethical relativism! Hence, according to the ethical relativists own principle [that disagreement about X implies there is no objective truth about X] it follows that ethical relativism cannot be objectively true!
In many cases disagreements are not moral disagreements at all, but rather, factual disagreements. For example, many people who live in India do not eat cows because they believe in reincarnation.
That is, they believe that cows may possess the souls of deceased human beings. For this reason, we eat cows - but we do not eat Grandma. It appears on the surface that there is a fundamental disagreement in moral principle between Indians and Americans.
This is a hasty conclusion, however, for both cultures believe it is wrong to eat Grandma; it is just that the Indians believe the cow may actually be Grandma, while we do not.
Thus it is a disagreement regarding the facts and not a disagreement in fundamental moral principles that divides our culinary habits. Relativists often defend their position by claiming they are more tolerant of other people and other cultures.
In a multicultural society it is better to be tolerant rather than intolerant. Since the ethical relativist does not believe his moral beliefs and practices are any truer than the moral beliefs of others, he can be tolerant in a way that the ethical objectivist cannot.
Hence, ethical relativism is preferable to ethical objectivism.
In putting forth tolerance as a virtue that everyone ought to adopt, it seems that the ethical relativist is putting forth tolerance as an objective, universal value.
But this is inconsistent with his relativist position that denies any objective, universal moral truths.Funny how 'Gandhi' ends with 'hi', and 'Hitler' begins with 'Hi'.
Their names join together, like two boys skipping, hand in hand across the field.
Reply to xtcgirl Gandhi and Hitler: Two Moral Opposites Essay Sample. One was one of humankind’s biggest enemies; the other was a great soul. These two men provide a clear understanding of Plato’s concept of harmony and how it relates to the cardinal virtues. Two of these leaders are Mohandas Gandhi and Adolf Hitler.
Gandhi was mainly known for solving his people’s problems in a peaceful manner. Hitler was mainly known for . "First, you made a very basic mistake by asserting that moral relativism and moral objectivism are opposites. They are not. The proper dichotomies are: moral relativism vs. moral absolutism, and moral subjectivism vs.
moral objectivism. opposites, 17 thus there must be opposites.
There are two major problems with this approach. The first is the example of the three men’s less in the Good than Gandhi. We call Hitler “evil,” not simply “not-good,” and have genuine have no opposites, and no moral connotations.
An example would be the discussion at the. Arguments for ethical relativism and objections - posted in General / other casual topics: What do you guys think about the objections to the arguments for relativism? Do they work? How would you respond to what two others have told me [at the bottom]?
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND OBJECTIONS1. THE ARGUMENT .