Relativist Morality Is Unfair Discuss

Relativist Morality is inequitable discuss Relativist morality could be seen as un modal(a), when looked at closely and seen from critics point of view it becomes clear that it is blowzy to question perhaps because of its helplessness as a moral system. The weakness could somewhat be perceived as making Relativist morality unfair. A relativist cannot pass judgement provided yet to be true to their defecate relativist they would be practising do not pass judgement consequently they ar preaching to others that they should not do something in order for others to follow relativism.This concludes that relativism is self refuting because a concept of relativism has been broken in order to follow it. This could be seen as unfair because to put relativist morality into practice would involve relativists cogent an individual what to do, regarding personal topic raises the question if being relativist means you atomic number 18 field of force to break a rule you live by, therefo re it is not fair in terms of my attitudes to ethical understanding.However it could be state that its not unfair as its one thing that relativists contract people to do in order to consider living from a relativists point of view. In real life relativism would be super hard to live by in all situations, and again the idea of unfairness can be applied. If for example a relativist lived in a society that refuses to punish an individual that kills a child, then they ar entitle to not like this as it is their opinion but butthey atomic number 18 not obliged to judge the abusers actions as raw.It is apparent that killing a child is unjust and defame but yet a relativist has no rectify to declare the murderer as guilty of wrongdoing, this rise a question If we are certain that murder of a child is wrong, then how can relativism exists? How can it be fair to not be able to label something seen as cruel , as unjust and thus wrong how can it be possible to not see this as unjust? An d how is this fair on the victim?That their death was in fact not wrong and not unjust because the actions were committed subject to the perpetrators moral understanding of what is right and good or because their society claims that this is right and good. Relativists see no oecumenic absolutes so nothing is universally worst or is it universally good thus this means that blame and compliment would become nonexistent because praise comes from doing something good but without good this would be virtually impossible because good would not be judged and therefore it could not be praised in a moral sense. This again could be seen s unfair because it could an act of kindness but yet there is no absolute good in the act for example helping an antiquated person with their shopping this is neither seen as good or crappy and therefore no praise could come of doing what is believed to be good. Relativists cant make charges of unfairness, despite what they may feel personally, say the re lativist thought that it was unfair for Nazi Ger umpteen to slaughter many Jews , but Germany thought these actions to be assort because it is relative to their society then Germanys would say they were being fair and thus must the Relativist.Many individuals will question this because these people that were slaughtered were innocent but yet a relativist would have see these acts as fair, it does not calculate fair to have an opinion that these acts were unfair but have to check up on that they were fair. How is this view fair for the millions of innocent Jews that were slaughtered?.There would be no prison house if moral relativism was to be put into practise because if there is not universal good or bad, then no law would be in place because nobody can decipher the truth thus penalty would be nonexistent because there is no need for anybody to be penalise if no one has the right to pass judgement on whether their actions are right or wrong and the reason for imprisonment is b ecause someone has committed crime thus there is no reason for prison to exists up to now then how would society function, in a recognizable fair itinerary for example the idea of shoplifting this would not be controlled neither would happenings much(prenominal) as rape.This would not be fair because individuals could hurt or appropriate because it was their moral understanding of good etc so harm would not be seen as bad and neither would theft and the country would therefore not be able to run because people would live how they pleased subject to their moral understanding.This type of life for people would not be fair with no guidelines people would be free do what they like causation pain to other psychically and emotionally and this would not be fair. In conclusion it can be said that relativist morality would not be fair because of the complications it would have when followed correctly and how difficult it would be followed properly. It would cause many problems in realit y that would not be fair on individuals.