Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Management
  • Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question

In the realm of ethics, the age-old debate surrounding moral objectivity versus relativism persists as a crucible of philosophical inquiry. The proponents of moral objectivity assert that there exist universal and immutable moral truths that are independent of human subjectivity. They posit that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of cultural context or individual perspective.

 

On the opposing end of the spectrum, advocates of moral relativism contend that moral principles are contingent upon cultural, societal, and individual contexts. They argue that what is considered morally acceptable or reprehensible varies across cultures and historical epochs. According to this view, morality is not an absolute, but rather a fluid construct shaped by the diversity of human experience.

 

The clash between these two philosophical camps is not only a theoretical conundrum but also bears profound implications for how societies legislate and enforce moral norms. A society grounded in moral objectivity may be inclined towards codifying specific moral doctrines into laws, with little room for deviation. Conversely, a society subscribing to moral relativism might exhibit a greater tolerance for diverse ethical perspectives, fostering an environment of pluralism.

 

Moreover, the discourse on moral objectivity versus relativism intersects with questions of cultural autonomy and human rights. Advocates of moral objectivity caution against cultural practices that may infringe upon fundamental human rights, invoking a universal moral standard as the basis for criticism. Conversely, proponents of moral relativism argue for respecting cultural autonomy and eschewing ethnocentrism in the evaluation of moral practices.

 

In the crucible of this debate, it is imperative to navigate the complexities with nuance and rigour. While moral objectivity provides a framework for universal principles, it must grapple with the challenge of accommodating cultural diversity. On the other hand, moral relativism necessitates vigilance against the potential for moral complacency or the endorsement of practices that may contravene human dignity.

 

Ultimately, the discourse on moral objectivity versus relativism underscores the profound complexities embedded within the fabric of human ethics. It calls for a dialectical engagement that transcends facile dichotomies, seeking a synthesis that honours both the universality of human dignity and the richness of cultural diversity.

Question:

What potential implications does the passage suggest for societies grounded in moral objectivity?

 

Option: 1

A greater tolerance for diverse ethical perspectives


Option: 2

A tendency to codify specific moral doctrines into laws


Option: 3

A preference for cultural autonomy in ethical matters

 


Option: 4

A propensity for moral relativism


Answers (1)

best_answer

The passage suggests that societies grounded in moral objectivity may be inclined towards codifying specific moral doctrines into laws.

 

Posted by

shivangi.shekhar

View full answer

Similar Questions

Latest Question