for a relativist theory of ethics to meet the following purposes of ethics: promote survival of society, resolve conflicts of interest justly, prevent unnecessary human suffering, and assign responsibility to others?
2006-12-13 15:08:20 · 9 answers · asked by iAmJustMe 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
i know the answer is no but why...
2006-12-13 15:13:03 · update #1
The only thing any relativistic theories accomplish is confusion.
2006-12-13 15:11:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is it about leftists? They believe in the theory of evolution, but submit to it's delima... Survival of the fittest. All of nature understands this fact. Don't be the one that evolution overrides in succession to the future. We must fight to survive. Suffering is necessary for humanity to have weight. I know it sounds crazy, but if we all walk around in the gray area, humanity will become one big mud puddle of useless, annoying inhibition. Class warfare, suppression, and hunger are the ambiance of forward movement. They inspire us to change the world. Without them, we would all be manequins. To more definitively answer your question, no. A relativist can only see things in light of what they experience. That's how most of the country has become. While it's a beautiful thought, perfection breeds imperfection. You can't have white without black. Gray is an area of zero inertia. Relatively speaking, when we experience nothing, we fix nothing. In a perfect world, yes, a relativist theory COULD promote the purposes of ethics, but in the real world, it would never happen. Life would be like a river with no destination, a highway with no coast. The initial activists would still retain ambition, but the next generation would be bland. The generation following those would return to life as we now know it-- Ups, downs, pain, happiness, good, bad, humble, and greedy.
2006-12-13 23:27:21 · answer #2 · answered by Rockstar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - since ethics involves a theory of motivation based on ideas of right and wrong and truth is the basis for defining right and wrong, then the only way to solve the problems you mention would begin with a search for the truth. The truth is by its very nature not a relative concept but a positive absolute; right and wrong are only what they are in terms of there relationship to the truth.
2006-12-13 23:17:43 · answer #3 · answered by enricodiroma 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A relativistic theory of ethics would not even recognize your concepts as ethical dilemmas.
PS I just said why. Relativism does not allow us to even frame the problem, since it's anti realism is contradicted every time the normal understanding, language, is used. Since our language presupposes reality. You are familiar with relativism from a philosophic/scientific perspective, aren't you?
2006-12-13 23:14:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The four purposes you list require a proactive solution. Relativism, by nature, is reactive.
It requires mistakes as well as victories to determine a position, so there ultimately IS no resolution or prevention, and promotion or assignation are arbitrarily one-sided.
2006-12-13 23:27:44 · answer #5 · answered by mrfixit64857 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Human is gifted with a choice....
He has to consciously choose, every action, inaction, in full awareness of the consequence, and evolve into deeper levels of perception to 'live' in every possible sense of the word !
2006-12-14 00:23:54 · answer #6 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure... but there is one direction I will point you... it is research by a guy called Kenneth Arrow... Arrow's Theorem was the product..
2006-12-13 23:19:00 · answer #7 · answered by K V 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It isn't possible because we are all human and this is not a perfect world.
2006-12-14 00:54:15 · answer #8 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope
2006-12-13 23:10:29 · answer #9 · answered by purple222 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋