Advertisements has been utilized for many years to sell products. The very popular company Nike, who has been one of the top brands in sports and athletic apparel for decades, has become very effective when it comes to persuading a specific target audience through the use of their advertisements. In 2009, Nike started a men versus women campaign to increase the awareness of their Nike+ system. During that time, the Nike+ community was predominately males. They needed to attract more female runners, so Nike utilized gender competition as a rhetorical device to encourage women participate. This challenge was one of the most successful Nike challenges ever because it drew in more than 120,000 new runners who signed up for the challenge and more than 50,000 were female runners.…
Many people are lead to adopt Ethical Relativism because they believe that it justifies their view that one ought to be tolerant of the different behavior of people in other cultures. However, Ethical Relativism does not really justify tolerance at all. All around the world, there are different types of cultures, which have different ethical values that will be correct according to their cultures. Nevertheless, some people might argue about different cultures that have different moral codes that they can not accept; examples: polygamy and infanticide. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism proposes that we can stop the criticism and be more tolerant with other cultures. To illustrate, we could no longer say that custom of other societies…
Moral relativism is one’s perception of what is acknowledged to be morally just or unjust depending on accepted demeanor. Certain behaviors and manners that a specific culture may consider to be acceptable, another culture may consider to be unethical. In such an instance, neither one of the cultures would be incorrect. Morals are culturally defined in that it originates from the root as to what is considered socially acceptable.…
Ethical relativism is a concept in which most simple minded individuals adhere to. According to definition in the chapter, ethical relativism is the normative theory that what is right is what the culture or individual says is right. Shaw argues that it is not very plausible to say that ethical relativism is determined by what a person thinks is right and wrong. He gives reason that it “collapses the distinction between thinking something is right and it’s actually being right.” Ethical relativism may be justified occasionally. William H. Shaw examines ethical relativism by providing comprehensive examples on why relativism is a weak method in gaining morals.…
Moral Relativism is the thought that the moral beliefs held by individuals is influenced and dependent on the culture in which they live in considers tolerable. Hence, what is considered morally appropriate in a single society perhaps is perceived as immoral in a different society. In actuality they both maybe right as they have distinct creators resulting in different laws, diversity, and possibly religious views of each other. Ruth Benedict defends the theory of moral relativism in her article A Defense of Moral Relativism from The Journal of General Psychology. In contrast, William B. Irvine author of Confronting Relativism feels in a few swift examples people can be talked out of their views on moral…
Moral relativism did not become a prominent topic in philosophy or elsewhere until the 20th century. Moral relativism is the making of an excuse for the action done. Behaviors should not be dismissed under certain circumstances. Moral relativism is dangerous and illogical which can be seen through murders, abortion, and lying.…
Louis Pojman stands for objectivism instead of relativism in morality. Ethical relativism is “the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles”. Ethical relativism however is different from moral doubt where valid moral principles do not exist at all. Pojman argues that what is considered as morally right or wrong varies from society to society. Pojman proposes that ethical relativism can be seen as a good thing but can get hard when getting into the details.…
Ethical relativism is based on society and also individual’s desires. With that being said ethical relativism varies from culture to culture and person to person. Does this mean that ethical relativism is any less of a valid theory than other theories? We shall find out in the next 3 pages. Joseph Ratzinger once said “having a clear faith based on the creed of the church is often labeled today as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself, be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, look like the only attitude acceptable and today’s standards (www.brainyquote.com).…
Relativism is the idea that one's beliefs and values are understood in terms of one's society, culture, or even one's own individual values. You may disagree with someone and believe your view is superior, relative to you as an individual; more often, relativism is described in terms of the values of the community in which one lives. The view of ethical relativism regards values as determined by one's own ethical standards, often those provided by one's own culture and background. Rather than insisting that there are moral absolutes, moral claims must be interpreted in terms of how they reflect a person's viewpoint; moral claims are then said to be "right in a given culture" or "wrong for a given society." Perhaps one person lives in a culture where having a sexual relationship outside of marriage is regarded as one of the worst things a person can do; in this culture a person engaging in extramarital sex may be punished or even forced to leave. But another culture might have a considerably different…
This premise of cultural relativism shows prefigure of moral relativism. Moral relativism can be generally grouped into three categories; (1) descriptive moral relativism, (2) normative moral relativism, and (3) meta-ethical moral relativism. Descriptive relativism, according to Frankena, is the idea ‘that the basic ethical beliefs of different people and societies are different and even conflicting’ [1973:109]. The second form of ethical relativism conceives the idea that ‘what is really right or good in the one case is not so in another. Such a normative principle seems to violate the requirements of consistency and universalization’[1973:109]. The last among the three reveals that ‘there is no objectively valid, rational way of justifying one against another; consequently, two conflicting basic…
I’m going to be talking about if we should eliminate the electoral college. On December 13, 2000, vice president Al Gore conceded the presidential election to Governor Bush. A day earlier, a lengthy and expensive manual vote recount process in Florida was stopped by the United States supreme court despite Bush leading by only 537 votes with Bush winning the states by 25 electoral votes put him over the needed threshold of 275. This election result was highly unusual not just because of Supreme Court decisions it was also the 4th time in united states history that a candidate had garnered majority of the popular votes but lost the election. As you all also have heard this type of scenario happened again with Hillary winning the popular vote…
The world is becoming an increasingly smaller place, culturally speaking. The modern world has more bridges to other cultures and ways of thinking than ever before. This phenomenon is due largely to the advent of the internet, global industry, and increased travel for business and pleasure to opposite corners of the world. This “global village” we live in introduces the average person to more cultural, and seemingly moral, differences than previous generations experienced. Ruth Benedict’s “Case for Moral Relativism” claims beliefs and practices form irrationally and randomly, creating a world where no one morality is ‘better’ than any other morality.…
The article was very clear and left no room for grey areas but as history would show, and as it’s stated in the first chapter, “the view of ethical relativism regards values as determined by one’s own ethical standard, often those provided by one’s own culture and background. Rather than insisting that there are moral absolutes, moral claims must be interpreted in terms of how they reflect a person’s viewpoint; moral claims are then said to be “right in a given culture” or “wrong for a given society”. (Mosser, 2010)…
Saying that ethics are relative is an effortless way to avoid a controversial topic concerning ethics. In the case of relativism, we can simply say that your opinion is true and mine too and nothing being wrong with that. On the other hand, ethical absolutism tells us that there is an objective moral code and that certain of our actions as humans are necessarily right or wrong. What would happen if we say two contradictory statements can't coexist as Aristotle demonstrated? Through the law of non-contradiction from Aristotle and ethical absolutism, I will argue against ethical relativism.…
The Absolutist theory is the theory that certain things are right or wrong from an objective point of view and cannot change according to culture. Certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, which means they are right or wrong in themselves. This is also known as deontological. The relativist theory is the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles. All principles and values are relative to a particular culture or age. Ethical relativism means that there is no such thing as good “in itself”, but if an action seems good to you and bad to me, that is it, and there is no objective basis for us to discover the truth. This theory is also known as teleological.…