Ethical Relativism: The Battle Of Thermopylae
When I was growing up, I loved being told about the tales of great people and the things they did to earn such a place in history. Even though not all historic personalities have had a positive impact on history, take the example of Hitler, many of them have engraved their names because of the many great things they accomplished. One of my favorites characters of all times is Leonidas. He was a king of the city-state of Sparta from about 490 B.C. until his death at the Battle of Thermopylae against the Persian army in 480 B.C (). The Battle of Thermopylae is the most famous battle of the Second Persian Invasion of Greece and one of the most famous battles in European ancient history (). Aside the point that this battle was definitely a defeat
…show more content…
Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms [...]”. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards (standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times). The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. Ethical relativism is not a consequentialist ethical theory. Analyzing the violence and war issue under the scope of this ethical theory has many ways to be seen. In ancient societies, like the spartan society, this action was considered good in nature. As a matter of fact, in those times man that were not very aggressive in nature were seen as weak, and in some societies punished for such behavior. In today’s world, this perspective has changed quite a bit. Now a day, societies are more aware that war between nations bring only devastation for all the parties involved, so the ethical perspective over this issue has changed to negative for the most part. Unfortunately, there are still some small groups within some nations that persist in keeping this type of mentality. There’s no solid conclusion under ethical relativism for this matter as everything depends on the norms of the society that is viewing the
Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms [...]”. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards (standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times). The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. Ethical relativism is not a consequentialist ethical theory. Analyzing the violence and war issue under the scope of this ethical theory has many ways to be seen. In ancient societies, like the spartan society, this action was considered good in nature. As a matter of fact, in those times man that were not very aggressive in nature were seen as weak, and in some societies punished for such behavior. In today’s world, this perspective has changed quite a bit. Now a day, societies are more aware that war between nations bring only devastation for all the parties involved, so the ethical perspective over this issue has changed to negative for the most part. Unfortunately, there are still some small groups within some nations that persist in keeping this type of mentality. There’s no solid conclusion under ethical relativism for this matter as everything depends on the norms of the society that is viewing the