Is_Global_Warming_Skepticism_Just_Smoke_and_Mirrors

Gloria J. Davis-Ake Relativism and Morality SOC 120 Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility (BLB1045A) November 8, 2010 Exploring what is Relativism and Morality and some instances in which we cannot help but see things as being right or wrong. “Relativism is the view or claim that there is no absolute referent for human beliefs, human behaviors, and ethics. Relativists claim that humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of, for example, their historical or cultural context” ( http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org). It starts simply enough, with Bimal Matilal, a scholar uses Indian government traditions to help him make his point for pluralism, used traditions of India to help his point of view; (1) respect for life (2) deference to truth, (3) abhorrence of theft, and (4) rejection of adultery. “Morality – is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories. When talking about a moral quality involving a course of action, we think of ethics. To define morality, a person will use the rules or habits with regard to right and wrong that he or she follows.” (http://www.all aboutphilosophy). In this thesis the argument against these things is broken down in various sources: weakness in arguments in American Courts (among other things, “Unconstitutional Vagueness”), a quote from Aristotle, an argument about truth versus lies and the nothing of the thousand qualifications which weaken a law or a rule. Matilal’s conclusion, according to Goodman, was consensus, which “carries blandness or compromise of principle.” Goodman points this up with the example sentence: “Yet compromise is the stuff of politics. America might never have won its independence or framed its constitution if the slavery question had first to be settled on principle.” He continues “If politics is the art of the possible, virtuosity in that art must lie in seeing to it that the compromises that build consensus do not immolate principle—so heavily paper over principled divides that ambiguity itself becomes a point of law and tactic, leaving vital issues to fester or smolder out of sight.” (