Did I just mention the words "zombie apocalypse" in a university setting? Damn straight I did.
Discussion topic: Our text discusses the challenge relativism presents to various ethical and religious viewpoints. Consider a specific moral question which might make it difficult to accept the relativist's response. State the moral issue involved, and provide an explanation as to why you think a relativist might have problem giving a justified response to it
Your initial post should be at least 150-200 words in length. Support your claims with examples from required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ postings by Day 7. (You must create one initial post and at least two responses, for a minimum of three posts for this discussion.)
My response:
Relativism, as previously stated by others above, is a theory or a way many think that justify the means. In other words, it is very hard for a thinker of such thoughts to justify, and explain a moral issue that is based on the virtues of a belief system of a certain culture and society. Different cultures, different societies, different rules. What one person may think is normal and everyday, another might look upon such an issue with disgust, and a perfect version of a ghoul in pain. Yet, no matter what the society, or what that belief system is majorily so, majority overrules in the sense that those of minority follow the majority, all because many of them are afraid to become ostracized by their own family, countrymen, and neighbors. So in the sense every morality issue that we, as Americans, come across can either become refuted or agreed upon, all because it's based on those we question beliefs' system, as well as their moral and ethical backgrounds that may permeate their lives.
In the sense of moral questions that lead more towards ethical or not, a good question to ask about would be: medical testing on humans. Not animals, human beings, homo sapiens. We consider it unethical, wrong, and appalling. More so in the sense that it is no longer just simply "medical testing on animals", now it's on fellow mankind. Why is it so morally unappealing to people when they think about it? Could it be they see where once was lab rats, was instead a loved one, strapped to a gurney, pumped with drugs of different variants, none of which no one knows? Or are we afraid that it will end up like all horror movies, and something will become created, will become engineered, and we will end up having a zombie apocalypse of our own? This and more are questions and scenes that flood the mind when the thought of the time where doctors and scientists ditch the labrats, the monkeys, and the other random species of mammalia, and go more towards the bigger game, those found on the top of the food chain --humans. In the sense of realtivism thinkers, they will dispute this to their dying wish and dying breath that this is not only morally unethical, but they will also begin to drag whatever religion beliefs they have, and ask one question: who are we to play God? The same question many ask when the thought of cloning occurs, especially now since recently South Korean scientists have cloned nine coyotes with coyote cells injected into dog embryos.
This issue is on the same line as hurting another human being, causing death to another human being (even if accidental), and adds to more moral issues on top of ethics as well. On top of just those listed, human testing is needed, but will never happen. It will only happen once those beginning trials are tested on the many lab rats named Pinky and the Brain, but to just skip past that, and go straight to human testing without pre-trials, it would be considered blasphemy. Being justified by a relativist would be near impossible, because it's not just a question of humans replacing animals in testing, but it would touch base on many other problems that would span outward from the main issue, on top of whatever he or she may think overall.
References:
Mosser, Kurt. (2011). Philosophy: A Concise Introduction. IA: Ashford University. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPHI200.10.2/sections/ch00
In the sense of moral questions that lead more towards ethical or not, a good question to ask about would be: medical testing on humans. Not animals, human beings, homo sapiens. We consider it unethical, wrong, and appalling. More so in the sense that it is no longer just simply "medical testing on animals", now it's on fellow mankind. Why is it so morally unappealing to people when they think about it? Could it be they see where once was lab rats, was instead a loved one, strapped to a gurney, pumped with drugs of different variants, none of which no one knows? Or are we afraid that it will end up like all horror movies, and something will become created, will become engineered, and we will end up having a zombie apocalypse of our own? This and more are questions and scenes that flood the mind when the thought of the time where doctors and scientists ditch the labrats, the monkeys, and the other random species of mammalia, and go more towards the bigger game, those found on the top of the food chain --humans. In the sense of realtivism thinkers, they will dispute this to their dying wish and dying breath that this is not only morally unethical, but they will also begin to drag whatever religion beliefs they have, and ask one question: who are we to play God? The same question many ask when the thought of cloning occurs, especially now since recently South Korean scientists have cloned nine coyotes with coyote cells injected into dog embryos.
This issue is on the same line as hurting another human being, causing death to another human being (even if accidental), and adds to more moral issues on top of ethics as well. On top of just those listed, human testing is needed, but will never happen. It will only happen once those beginning trials are tested on the many lab rats named Pinky and the Brain, but to just skip past that, and go straight to human testing without pre-trials, it would be considered blasphemy. Being justified by a relativist would be near impossible, because it's not just a question of humans replacing animals in testing, but it would touch base on many other problems that would span outward from the main issue, on top of whatever he or she may think overall.
References:
Mosser, Kurt. (2011). Philosophy: A Concise Introduction. IA: Ashford University. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPHI200.10.2/sections/ch00
Comments