Supporters of relativism believe that morality in the objective sense does not exist. The moral norms adopted in society are not obligatory for adherence and execution. In absolute terms, the concepts of evil and good are nothing more than fiction. In this regard, researcher Porus noted that moral relativism could easily degenerate into permissiveness (Bush and Moss, 2020). Moreover, people who adhere to this point of view can be perceived as the ones trying to devalue moral norms to the lowest possible level, will not attempt to seek compromises and negotiate on mutually beneficial terms.
On the contrary, objectivism states that there is right and wrong that do not depend on someone’s opinions or other factors. In this sense, moral standards are believed to be propounded and everlasting, not created by humans. There are many philosophical variations and interpretations of objectivism, but the key idea lies in proclaiming one genuine truth. This evidently opposes the concept of relativism in every aspect (Bush and Moss, 2020). Objectivism, however, admits that some moral norms may change, but at thy core, any rules and standards evolve around an unaltered understanding of bad and good.
I find relativism more convincing despite some flaws it contains. Although absolute relativity often signals the absence of a moral and ethical core and is thus unreliable, the theory of relativism has more realistic features. Every day we face elections, the result of which often cannot be called correct or not. Most people, in principle, always try to act ethically, but even then, their actions can be perceived negatively. You will not please everyone precisely because, despite some existing ideas about good and evil, you make decisions that pass through the prism of experience, psychological characteristics of a person, circumstances, and weighing many factors. I find objectivism too utopian an ultimatum, which seeks to simplify morality while threatening it with a distorted view of reality.
Reference
Bush, L. S., & Moss, D. (2020). Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism. Diametros, 17(64).
Moral relativism is the view that what determines whether something is right or wrong is a person’s opinion. Since human opinions vary significantly, this then means that there is no universal definition of right and wrong. What seems wrong to one person could be right with another. Relativism has become quite popular with the globalization of the world. There is a conscious attempt to accommodate everyone, and this has favoured the moral relativism movement (Scheb, 2001).
Historically, Greek philosopher Protagoras was the first to come up with the idea of relativism. He proposed that reality varied according to people’s point of view. His work was later quoted by Plato who supported this view. Herodotus also cautioned that societies believe that their way of doing things is superior to all others. Later, Baruch Spinoza said that nothing can be said to be inherently good or evil, it all depends on many factors. Anthropologist Ruth Benedict was against the use of one’s own cultural standards to judge others from a different culture. The anthropologist claimed that in order to completely understand someone’s actions and make a judgement about whether they did good or evil, it is necessary to consider the cultural context.
Culture in relativism refers to the accepted norms of behaviour among a certain group. It may be ethnic, religious or even national. Scholars who were against relativism questioned the legitimacy of these cultures. The fact that we belong to many different sub- cultures means that there are too many basis on which to judge whether something is good or evil. They also claimed that some things are universally right e.g. respect for parents, whereas others are universally wrong e.g. torturing children. This leads us to the other side of the debate, moral objectivism.
This is the view that what is morally right or wrong is independent of human opinion. According to this view, some things are right and others wrong, regardless of what people think. There are two types of moral objectivism theories, teleological and deontological theories. Deontological theories claim that the act in itself is what determines what is good or evil. These theories are also referred to as duty based theories. Immanuel Kant was the major proponent of this theory. He advises that people should only act according to those rules that they would wish to be universal laws. Therefore, if one would not approve of their sister or daughter being raped, then they should not rape another woman.
Teleological theories focus on the consequences rather than the action itself. John Stuart Mill vouched for utilitarianism, the best known form of teleological theory. His view was that a good action is one that results in the greatest joy for the majority of the people, while an evil one is that which results in the greatest unhappiness for the greatest number of people. However, Mill did not provide a standard measure of happiness, making his theory slightly ambiguous.
Religious leaders propose that what is good or evil is determined by external forces beyond man. They say that only a good God can determine what is good or evil. This is because man changes according to his emotions. Therefore, the single way to identify what is right is to look to God for guidance. Atheists and some scientists disagree with this view.
The debate on relativism versus objectivism affects our daily lives profoundly. This paper seeks to establish the effect of this on the American Federal, Legislative and Judge made laws. The issues of abortion, slavery and homosexuality will be discussed extensively. American Law has changed over the years and is becoming more accommodative due to the great cultural diversity of the citizens.
Slavery in America began around 1952. Traders would travel to Africa and purchase people, and then transport them to America by ship. These slaves were sold mainly to white Plantation owners. They worked on the plantations to produce cash crops such as tea, cotton and coffee. Initially, slavery was legalized in North and Southern America. Slaves were treated as chattels, and the slave owners could decide what to do with them. Some slave owners allowed their slaves to purchase their freedom after working for some time. The first legal case filed by a slave was the Dredd Scott vs. Emerson and later Dredd Scott vs. Stanford in 1857. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a slave court ruled that African slaves were not citizens of America and therefore not protected by the constitution. This ruling was in line with the society’s expectations at that time.
Later, in 1863, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. American society had started frowning against slavery. However, the proclamation was not legally binding and had to be followed almost immediately with the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. The law very which had once endorsed slavery abolished it because society considered it wrong. This marked the beginning of the fight for equality.
Abortion was illegal in most of the American states in 1900. These laws prohibiting abortion were created between the 1820s and 1900. They were an effort of both physicians and legislators. Abortion was prohibited after the fourth month and in cases where it was not to save the mother’s life. However, this absolute stand was altered by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Roe vs. Wade case of 1973. This ruling effectively made abortion legal in the US. There are still some pro-life activists who do not support this law, but abortion still remains legal because society believes a woman has the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
Homosexuality was not explicitly addressed in the constitution. Rather, it was covered by a series of laws known as Sodomy Laws. They outlawed several sexual practises including same sex unions. Some of these practises were however ,legal in opposite sex unions. This changed in 2003 after the Lawrence v. Texas case. It involved two men who were arrested while engaging in sexual practises in Texas, where this was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that the sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
It is evident that the Legal system is moving from moral objectivism to moral relativism. Both the Federal system and the Judiciary have facilitated this by altering laws and creating new ones as seen above. Things that were previously considered evil are now legal. These changes have been accelerated by the belief by Americans in personal freedom. One can only wonder whether anything will be illegal in America in the future.
The separation of powers in the different branches of the government was intended to prevent dictatorship by any of the branches of the government. The system of checks and balances helps to achieve this goal by ensuring that no arm of the government can act with impunity. The executive has the power to appoint judges, veto power and power to pardon some offenders. However, the legislature can impeach the president, override presidential vetoes in special cases, declare war and approve the replacement of vice presidents and ambassadors. The judiciary on the other hand, can conduct judicial review and create laws by judicial precedent. These checks and balances were assumed to imply that the three arms of the government were separate, thus there is no explicit statement of this in the constitution.
The system of the government has embraced this notion in partiality. The different arms of the government have been seen to exercise their power on several occasions to prevent action by another arm which would be unconstitutional. This was the case in Dred Scott vs. Stanford when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress unconstitutional. This happened again when Chief Justice John Marshall declared another act of congress unconstitutional. Recently, two federal judges have also declared the president’s healthcare bill unconstitutional. However, they did not repeal the bill, leaving this decision to the Supreme Court. These are a few examples of instances when the structure of the government worked well. However, there are many more records of instances where branches of the government overstepped their mandate and encroached on other’s powers. This paper shall examine a few famous instances.
The case of Tube Co. Vs Sawyer of 1952 involving President Harry Truman forms our first case study. The dispute was whether the presidential powers allowed him to seize private property, in the form of the steel plants, in the case of an emergency. Justice Hugo Black of the Supreme Court ruled that the seizing and controlling of the mills by President Truman was unconstitutional and exceeded his executive mandate. The president should have found another way to deal with the revolting unions.
Congress overstepped its boundaries in the case of Bowsher vs. Synar in 1986. The judge ruled that the Gramm- Rudman- Hollings Act which Congress had enacted was unconstitutional. The said Act conferred on congress some kind of veto power to dismiss the United States Comptroller General. The Comptroller also had the executive power under this act to decide where funds would be cut if the budget was in deficit.
In 1974, President Richard Nixon refused to provide some Oval Office tapes that were believed to contain crucial information about the Watergate break-in. He claimed that the constitution provided him with executive privilege. However, the court ruled that though the privilege did exist, it did not extend to the tapes in question. This in effect meant that the president had either misused or overstretched his powers under the constitution.
The 1979 Hutchinson vs. Proxmire case was a dispute about how far the speech immunity granted to legislators’ stretched. The question was whether it extended beyond Congress or not. This immunity, granted by the constitution was meant to give the legislators freedom to discuss sensitive matters of the government without fear of being sued. The same immunity also applied to the judges. The court found that this immunity did not extend to statements made outside Congress and press releases, but applied only to official debates.
In the recent past, President Bush was criticized for authorizing an extensive surveillance programme. It involved data mining and watching footage of American citizens’ homes. This came immediately after the terrorist attack of September eleventh. This programme was not made known to other arms of the government. The president claimed that it was in the interest of the country’s security.
The judiciary however, objected to the programme, claiming that there was no legal basis for conducting the surveillance. Further, checking telephone records of innocent Americans was an invasion of personal privacy. Indications pointed towards a little known unit, The Main Core, as the perpetrators of this crime against Americans. However, the government refused to divulge more information or offer an explanation. The fact that the Executive can engage in secret activities that encroach on citizens’ privacy is an example of how the spirit of the separation of powers in the government is not being upheld. There should be checks on what the President does, but when it is done in secret, those checks cannot operate.
There is also the question of how the federal the government spends funds. Financial data shows that the United States of America’s public debt is equivalent to more than 80% of the Gross Domestic Product. The sad reality is that the the government spends much more than America can afford, driving the country further and further into debt. The major lenders to the US are China, Japan and Russia. The question is how these countries will recover their money from America. Chances are quite high that the individual taxpayers will bear the brunt of this massive $3.5 trillion debt. This is quite sad considering how hard an average American already has to work in order to make ends meet.
The government as it is has done well in some areas. The education system in America is one of the best. One can tell by the large number of foreign students admitted in schools and colleges. However, it has failed in self regulating. Politics has blinded some of the people in leadership and prevented them from serving Americans.
I would propose that the Judiciary be given more power over the executive and Legislature. This seems to be the only way to maintain sanity in the government. Left on their own, the Executive and Legislature have always made choices according to party politics rather than in the nation’s best interest.
Judges should also be appointed by an independent body. Appointing of judges by the president may create a feeling of obligation to further the president’s agendas. Professional lawyers and other qualified individuals can form the body. These independent appointments would help in creating an objective judiciary which would check on the other arms of the government.
The President’s healthcare bill has sparked a lot of controversy and let to almost two dozen lawsuits being filed. The major bone of contention is the mandate to get insurance by 2014. Currently, there have been four rulings in different federal districts regarding this matter. The healthcare bill is set to bring a revolution in the way healthcare is provided and will result in millions of Americans gaining access to healthcare. This paper will examine the four and finally give an individual opinion. The first ruling was made by a judge in Detroit, Judge George Caram Steeh. He ruled that the Healthcare Bill was constitutional (Kramer, 2007).
According to Steeh, the government was not overstepping its mandate in requiring citizens to purchase minimum insurance coverage or pay an extra tax. The plan would ensure that insurance cost was spread over a large number of people hence lower the premiums paid. This is as opposed to the situation where only those who considered themselves in need of medical insurance purchased it. In the latter scenario, the healthy people would be outside the insurance system while the sickly and old would be inside. This would then lead to higher insurance costs. The court thus ruled that the Bill was constitutional since it seeks to promote the participation of citizens in healthcare.
This ruling did not please the plaintiffs who claimed they had no private medical insurance and did not want the state to force them to purchase it. The plaintiffs, who are Christians, also expressed fears that any tax paid under this bill would be used by the government to pay for abortions. They vowed to take the case to a higher Court. However, as it stands, the ruling is binding in the district until a higher court repeals it (New York Times, 2011).
Judge Norman K Moon also ruled in favour of the constitutionality of the Health Care Bill. He dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the bill was an attempt by the government to regulate economic inactivity. He also concluded that the decision by the government to require Americans to participate in the provision of quality healthcare by purchasing insurance was within Congress’ powers.
In his 54 page ruling, Judge Moon found that Congress had the power to require employers and individuals to obtain minimum coverage. The defendants also stated that the Necessary and Proper and the General Welfare Clauses also gave congress the mandate required for this act. However, the judge did not go into the details of the latter clauses.
In regards to the Individual Coverage Provision, the judge ruled that the Supreme Court permitted congress to regulate activities that affected interstate commerce. Judge Moon found that lack of a Health Insurance cover would affect interstate commerce by transfer of the cost of medical emergencies to insurance companies, healthcare providers and the state. The resultant high insurance premiums would also affect the rest of the population. Thus, Congress was not overstepping its mandate in trying to prevent these undesirable consequences (Donerberg, Wingate, & Zeigler, 2008).
The plaintiff also argued that the Employer Coverage Provision was an attempt by congress to force employers to purchase for their employees a product. This is unconstitutional as it infringes on the rights of employers. However, the constitution also states that the state can regulate the terms of employment. Thus, the judge ruled in favour of the defendants.
The third judge, Henry Hudson in Virginia ruled against the healthcare bill, terming it to be unconstitutional. The fact that the government decided that citizens could not read the bill until it was passed amounted to forcing them to abide by it. The plaintiff, a Virginia attorney Ken Cuccinelli, cautioned that if this law was not repealed, then the government would get the leeway to control many other aspects of citizen’s lives. This could include gym membership to what they eat. This would be an infringement on the citizen’s rights. The Judge ruled that the bill was an attempt by the government to regulate interstate Commerce which is in fact unconstitutional. The judge also was against what he described as an attempt by the government to force Americans to purchase health insurance, which should be a personal decision. However, he did not strike down the whole Bill; rather, he stated that it needed several reforms. The ruling, made late last year, did not however stop the implementation of the Healthcare Bill. It was the first major setback for the government in promoting the bill (Leiter, 2007).
The government responded to this ruling saying that lack of health insurance is an economic activity as it affects doctors, hospitals and many small businesses. According to the government, the cost of providing healthcare during emergencies without insurance was too high and could be lowered with the adoption of this bill. They believed that the bill would stand the test of time and gain America’s support eventually (Melone & Karnes, 2007).
The most recent ruling was Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling towards the end of January this year. He agreed with Judge Henry Hudson but gave further reasons for his ruling. The ruling was delivered in a 78 page document. This is the latest blow to the president’s attempt at overhauling the health care system (Shane, 2009).
The basis for Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling was that the individual mandate in the law was unconstitutional. Congress had misused its power in requiring that everyone must purchase insurance. The penalty in the form of an extra tax was not based on a choice a person would make, rather on the fact that they are citizens of the USA and are alive. This amounts to forcing compliance with the law (Harman & Thomson, 1996).
The judge also found that a citizen’s decision not to purchase insurance was economic inactivity, as opposed to the government’s claim that it is an economic activity. Unlike the earlier ruling by Judge Hudson, Vinson found that the personal mandate could not be separated from the rest of the Healthcare Bill. This is because the operation of the bill depends almost entirely on the personal mandate. Without the personal mandate, there would be a limitation on funds to finance this Act Therefore; he concluded that the entire bill was unconstitutional. He however refrained from issuing an injunction against the law. Judge Vinson did not however issue an injunction for the law but left it open for administration officials to appeal the case (Abadinsky, 2007).
It may be noteworthy that both Judge George Steeh and Norman Moon were both appointed by President Bill Clinton. Judges Vinson and Hudson were both appointed to office by non- Democrat presidents. Some spectators see this as a battle of parties and not genuine legislators. However, Americans still hope that the outcome of this debate will be in their best interest (Harman & Thomson, 1996).
If I were a federal judge, I would consider both sides of the story before making, my ruling. It is true that the government’s intention is to provide better healthcare for Americans. Congress also has the power to regulate some aspects of society which if left to self regulate would result in more harm than good. The Commerce Clause also allows the government to intervene in free trade if the activities affect interstate affairs. However, there is a limit to how far Congress can go in exercising its powers.
A good government is not made by good intentions. It is the responsibility of congress to find ways to promote the welfare of society while maintaining the delicate balance between freedom and regulation. In this case, Congress has no right to compel Americans to purchase commercial health insurance. The implementation of this act will not affect those who are already members of such a scheme. It is the poor and middle class who will have to dig deeper into their pockets (Gerangelos, 2009).
The small and middle size enterprises would also suffer the burden of increased reporting requirements and forced healthcare contributions for employees. This bill contains many unconstitutional clauses that are both material and pervasive. I would therefore rule that the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as the Obama’s Healthcare Bill is unconstitutional. I would recommend that Congress redraft it, maintaining the spirit of providing affordable healthcare but implementing it in a manner that does not infringe on the citizens’ freedom (Harman & Thomson, 1996).
Reference List
Abadinsky, H. (2007). Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. London: Prentice Hall.
Donerberg, D. L., Wingate, K. C., & Zeigler, D. H. (2008). Federal Courts, Federalism and Separation of Powers: Cases and Materials (American Casebook). London: Thomson West.
Gerangelos, P. (2009). The Separation of Powers and Legislative Interference in Judicial Process: Constitutional Principles and Limitations. London: Hart Publishing.
Harman, G., & Thomson, J. (1996). Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Great Debates in Philosophy). Chicago: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kramer, M. (2007). Objectivity and the Rule of Law (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy and Law). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leiter, B. (2007). Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melone, A., & Karnes, A. (2007). The American Legal System: Perspectives, Politics, Processes, and Policies. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
New York Times. (2011). Times Topics. Web.
Scheb, J. M. (2001). Introduction to the American Legal System (The West Legal Studies Series). Chicago: Delmar Cengage Learning.
Shane, P. M. (2009). Madison’s Nightmare: How Executive Power Threatens American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
According to the definition of relativism, it is a concept that calls for the opinion that there is no universal truth in any concept. The premise of relativism is the belief that moral conduct is based on perceptions and the subscription to various beliefs. This implies that every opinion or claim has some truth in it because the claims in an opinion or an idea can be referenced to a unique point of view.
Additionally, relativism points toward the acceptance of all forms of biased opinions and beliefs, which is an indication that one cannot possibly use relativism as a basis for a logical argument that cannot be refuted. The refutation of relativism would be propagated from an opinion that would also be supported by the theory; hence, there is a clear indication that when using relativism, one cannot subscribe to morality as a universal factor.
Moral Relativism
Moral relativism encompasses the development of platforms to judge the moral inclinations of individuals in different societies. Religious beliefs are commonly used as the basis for the development of the standards that govern the moral beliefs of a given society. For instance, Christians might believe that a given line of thought is morally appropriate because it is backed by their religious doctrines. However, there are numerous religious groups that have different doctrines.
The respective members of the religious groups believe that their moral inclinations should be adopted on a universal basis (Levy 12). It is difficult to challenge the moral beliefs of the different religious groups because there is no universal standard to facilitate the same.
Relativists believe that every claim or belief has some truth in it. They are led by the notion that whenever they encounter challenges in supporting their beliefs, they can always call on the relativist model to back their claims. However, the essence of morality is to embrace values that cannot be refuted, and ensuring that every action or belief is aligned with the doctrines that govern the main idea associated with a moral belief (Renteln 23).
With relativism, it is difficult to secure a singular perspective that aligns with personal belief; hence, it is difficult for individuals assuming a relativist approach to life to live without propagating contradictions. The contradictions emanate from the fact that it is impossible to restrict relativism to a single paradigm of beliefs. The main reason that Christians and other religious groups have doctrines that fail to attain parallelism with relativism is that they are aware of the need to refrain from propagating contradictions.
Conclusion
Relativists do not always subscribe to beliefs or moral values that contradict. They might sometimes restrict their references to values that align with each other. However, the main challenge arises from the fact that relativism welcomes all forms of arguments, and it dictates that subscribers of the relativist line of thought find specific truths from every idea. This implies that a relativist has no freedom to claim that a given idea has no basis or truth.
If a relativist believes in the Christian doctrines, he or she would also have to believe in the doctrines developed by Muslims and other religious groups. This would ultimately result in the development of a biased and contradictory approach to religion. It is, therefore, impossible for relativists to claim that they can subscribe to the model without contradiction themselves at some point.
Works Cited
Levy, Neil. Moral relativism: A short introduction. Oneworld Publications, 2014.
Renteln, Alison Dundes. International human rights: Universalism versus relativism. Quid Pro Books, 2013.
Life dictates that as one grows old, they may progressively lose the capacity to aid themselves with things that seemed relatively straightforward in their youth. It is crucial to note this does not mean the elderly are helpless; instead, they need extra help to conduct various activities. Some people neglect their elderly kin as they seem like a burden. Some of these people have difficulty navigating life alone, requiring exceptional help from others in society. Human beings need compassion and a sense of camaraderie to prevent issues such as depression from setting in. When the young and elderly practice doxa, they determine that solitude is a relative issue, dependent on one’s capacity to accept their situation. Many elderly folks can manage well independently, while others need help to conduct essential duties. Nonetheless, helping either of these people constitutes a service to humanity as one does not expect payment but shows mercy and compassion to others in their time of need.
Relativism involves the fluid nature of situations and how people interpret issues based on different angles. It relates to concerns that determine when involved in abstraction, some issues exhibit various properties and are not simpliciter, exhibiting these traits based on a particular assessment framework. Such assessment is based on individual standards and cultural norms. In this way, the truth posited by claims illustrating some of these factors dictates that relevant assessment frameworks are supplied or specified. Proponents of relativism claim that if an item is relatively inclined in a particular manner, it cannot posit a framework independent of a vantage point where the issue can be questioned in terms of its establishment (Hautamäki & Mamane 37). In this instance, relativism deals with the advancement of age and whether one must help those reaching a certain age with typical societal issues.
My grandmother is far from being deemed helpless; she lives by herself and does not indicate any form of mental deterioration. She has continually exhibited a healthy lifestyle that has seen her progress through life with relative ease for her age. However, time catches up with us all. She has recently exhibited various issues, such as fatigue and breathlessness, after conducting minor duties. it is crucial to note she is fiery and insists she can conduct various duties independently. However, saying it does not make it accurate, a factor that has reinforced my belief that she needs help and should not live alone but in a community to help her during this period (Stenmark, Fuller, & Zackariasson 84). I believe this would help her connect with other people and give her family a chance to visit more often, and give her company to alleviate the solitude.
Individuals that live in solitude develop various issues, such as anxiety and depression. People are not meant to live alone, a factor that is evident in our family orientation and capacity to seek out others that exhibit similar traits (Storr 123). It is essential to note this applies to every person and does not exclude those who state they are better off alone. My grandma has been living by herself for a long time and needs to reconnect with others to improve her living standards. She requires other people to function normally despite the belief that she can stay by herself. I believe she needs to stay with her family and let them take care of her as she gets old to ensure she lives longer and can pass on her knowledge about the family to future generations.
It is vital to note that people living in solitude have a sense of doxa that does not exhibit positive traits that others in society would consider accurate. They accept their condition as a normal part of life, though this is not the case since people are social beings (Poulakos & Depew 49). Human beings have achieved many things because social networks and significant shifts in ideology or other aspects of life are predicated on a capacity to work together. Thinking about one’s position in life enables a person to intricately assess their life and determine what they need to do to ensure they are working for the community’s good. In this instance, helping my grandmother integrate herself into society appears as the best option to reduce isolation and its effects. She should have other people to communicate with and share her thoughts and feelings to lead a happy life connected to others around her.
St. Francis of Assisi claims there are two angles to consider solitude, running towards an aspect and running away from something. In the first instance, some people look for solitude as relief from a frenetic and busy lifestyle in an increasingly connected world, using solitude to deal with a hectic social life (Storr 124). In this way, they deem solitude a necessity, utilizing places and time to rest and rejuvenate their bodies and mind. These individuals perceive solitude as an end in itself. In contrast, some individuals perceive solitude as a way to escape some aspect of life. In this case, they do not consider solitude as an end but rather a means to avoid a circumstance. My grandma’s isolation from the family falls into the second category as it is not an end to any scenario. Nonetheless, reconnecting her with the family is a vital task that would enable her to reconnect with others and lead a better life with those who value her. It is crucial to claim that looking after an older adult is hard. Nonetheless, it is essential to conduct such duties as we were once considered relatively helpless and given aid in infancy.
Developing a good rapport with isolated relatives makes them feel appreciated and increases their connection with others. They do not regard the relative nature of relationships with others in the family but consider how they can live with those that help them avoid a solitary life. Human beings are meant to live together and exhibit depression and anxiety if they are isolated from others (Quinodoz & Slotkin). Family units help people navigate life, where the elderly face more problems conducting activities than their younger counterparts. Helping these people navigate life makes them feel appreciated, and Doxa boosts their image in the community. Developing a sense of community and connection is imperative to boost empathy and avoid resentment (Quinodoz & Slotkin). While people may refrain from communicating for some time, they should not avoid it altogether as it posits giving up on others and relationships. Isolation is a negative aspect that is increasingly evident in modern life. People talk more using mobile devices but fail to communicate about their well-being, leading to solitude and relative separation.
Works Cited
Hautamäki Antti, and Michelle Mamane. Viewpoint Relativism, a New Approach to Epistemological Relativism, Based on the Concept of Points of View. Springer, 2021.
Quinodoz, Jean-Michel, and Philip Slotkin. The Taming of Solitude: Separation Anxiety in Psychoanalysis. Routledge, 2005.
Poulakos, Takis, and David Depew. Isocrates and Civic Education. University of Texas Press, 2004.
Stenmark, Mikael, et al. Relativism and Post-Truth in Contemporary Society: Possibilities and Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Storr, Anthony. Solitude: A Return to the Self. Free Press, 2005.
The philosophy of nursing suggests that nurses have the obligation to use their knowledge for the well-being of patients. This paper seeks to show the effect of relativism, obscurantism and nihilism on this philosophy. Moreover, it will focus on the benefits of prejudices to personal philosophy.
Relativism
The concept of relativism suggests that the opinions of people do not have absolute validity (Critchley, 2001). It asserts that the views vary according to individual perception and beliefs. In addition, it directs that life does not have absolute truths or morals.
The concept of relativism has a direct impact to the philosophy of nursing. In this light, it suggests that humility and patience are relative. Therefore, the philosophy of nursing cannot define the two values in an absolute manner. As a result, various nurses will define and understand them differently.
For example, a nurse might be unable to distinguish between humility for a child and a mature patient. Therefore, the concept of relativism poses a crucial challenge to the entire philosophy. In reference to the concept of relativism, philosophy becomes virtual and relative.
Obscurantism
Obscurantism is a concept that prevents the revelation of knowledge to people. It purports the retention of full details about something or somebody.
The philosophy of nursing is impacted by obscurantism significantly. In this light, it hinders the operation of nurses that require a nurse to teach the patients about what is happening in their bodies (Dahnke & Dreher, 2011).
Therefore, it asserts that nurses should retain some information in exceptional circumstances as opposed to the philosophy. For example, a nurse who reveals that a patient has an incurable disease might induce psychological illness.
Therefore, obscurantism requires the nurse to hide some information about the disease and disclose later. In this light, obscurantism aims at improving the effectiveness of the philosophy.
Nihilism
Nihilism is a concept that negates the existence of values in life. It argues that life does not have values, morals or purpose. Therefore, it implies that life does not have the standard and absolute way of doing things. The concept subjects the component of life to change and improvement according to individuals.
On the other hand, the philosophy attempts to lay down the standards and guidelines of nursing (Klemke, Hollinger, & Kline, 1998). Therefore, the two doctrines raise professional controversy. The concept of nihilism restricts the philosophy to lay down the standards of professional conduct and behavior.
In addition, it weakens the philosophy by creating a feeling of despair. This despair is portrayed when the nurses perceive the lack of laws and norms governing the profession.
Prejudice
Prejudice is the act of making a preconceived judgement about a case. Apparently, assumptions are vital in propagating identities and other aspects of nursing. Matters of urgency require application of the available loops to reveal an idea.
For instance, if an individual under critical condition is brought to a hospital in an identifiable condition, prejudice assists in telling whether s/he is a Caucasian or an African (Klemke, Hollinger & Kline, 1998). This prejudice could be critical in matters of life and death or urgency.
In other cases, prejudice provides the first glance idea about a case allowing further factual techniques. The prejudice creates a lead to other findings that are supported by the fact. During childbirth, white Americans have a high risk of giving birth to children with immune syndromes.
However, native Indians do not pose any immune disorders related to the children. Therefore, in critical situations prejudice could be used to save lives of the mother and their children. Taking necessary precautions would therefore be vital in this case.
Conclusion
The essay explains how the three concepts affect the philosophy of nursing. In addition, it has made a positive approach to prejudice. Lastly, it has provided an example of how prejudice can be used for diagnosis.
References
Critchley, S. (2001). Continental philosophy: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahnke, M. D., & Dreher, H. M. (2011). Philosophy of science for nursing practice: concepts and application. New York: Springer Pub..
Klemke, E. D., Hollinger, R., & Kline, A. D. (1998). Introductory readings in the philosophy of science. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Relativism refers to a school of thought that asserts the relative nature of truth and other realities that characterize human existence in society. According to this sociological viewpoint, truth is usually variable depending on context and recurrent parametrical threshold (Binkley 12).
Relativists view truth as being subject to individual perceptions and prevailing circumstances that define human considerations with regard to various instances of discourse in social contexts. Moral relativism revolves around various benchmarks that define and regulate moral action during human engagement (Binkley 12).
In most cases, individuals propagate truth in a manner that favours their position on germane social undertakings. It is evident that ethical and moral action suffices in limited measure depending on what people have to lose or gain in different situations.
Relativism continues to experience controversy and contention due to its core ideals that seek to defend the relative and volatile nature of truth and ethical conduct in social contexts (Binkley 13). There has been debate on essence of the concept of truth relativism. This concept seeks to entrench the inability to define truth as being absolute and rigid.
For instance, truth that suffices in one context may not apply in a different or relatively similar context. Under this premise, truth depends on particular terms of reference and prevailing conditions that define such situations (Binkley 16). In fact, truth usually depends on particular parametrical thresholds such as cultural inclination and lingual orientation.
Cultural relativism seeks to highlight facts and realities that constitute truth in contexts of human interaction and engagement within cultural entities (Binkley 18). This research undertaking seeks to defend the proposition that truth is relative. It shall also analyze numerous points of view that investigate and assert the reality of this submission.
This shall include development of clear thoughts and deliberations with regard to manifestations of truth in individual and collective endeavours. The aforementioned objectives shall materialize through incorporation and utilization of ideas from credible and authoritative academic publications.
Discussion
Numerous definitions and implications suffice with regard to the concept of relativism. Scholars and modern philosophers have divergent views that seek to shed light on relativism as a critical facet of philosophical and sociological agency in contemporary society.
Through such efforts, they strive to establish a clear line of engagement that heralds scholarly engagements and counter engagements that overly embody relativism and its constituent realities (Thomas 32). Relativism entails scholarly positions that seek to assert proper understanding of truth and other cultural dynamics that determine perception and reception of truth and ethical conduct in society.
At the onset of 21st century, there were monumental scholarly adjustments that marked a shift regarding general view and understanding of relativist schools of thought (Thomas 32). This emanated from collective desire to decipher and demystify various factors and realities that give rise to deeper understanding of truth and ethics in social contexts.
Most people view truth as subjective and largely dependent on individual personality traits and attributes. This gave rise to various strains of relativism such as contemporary relativism and traditional relativism (Thomas 33). Both explanations hold contrarian views regarding the essence and rationale of truth and morality in society.
This research exercise primarily focuses on contemporary relativism and its relevance to human interaction and engagement in social contexts. However, it is important to establish a historical background with regard to traditional relativism and its evolution to modern views that manifest among scholars and enthusiasts of philosophical discourse (Thomas 36).
Philosophers such as Socrates and Thomas Kuhn conducted extensive discourse surrounding relativist realities in context of society and human engagements. They defended relativism by arguing that it holds relevance in all social and cultural undertakings. Gilbert Harman argues against those who dismiss relativism as irrelevant and inaccurate (Thomas 37).
He asserts that relativism reflects realities that embody and characterize human action in society. According to him, it is impossible for individuals to alienate relativism because it constitutes basic truth and factual representation of society. Gilbert argues that most things make sense in relation to prevailing circumstances and individual aspirations that characterize human thoughts and actions (Thomas 39).
He further argues that concepts of ethics and morality only suffice as components of immediate realities in a situation. Prior to this monumental shift, there was liberal application and usage of relativist ideologies without much thought on the overall reaction of contemporaries within philosophical discourse.
After the events of 20th century, relativism acquired new meaning and status with regard to application and relevance in society. This reality necessitated further research and scholarly undertakings that sought to give direction regarding relativism (Thomas 43).
Contemporary scholars insist on the need for clear distinction between various arguments that arise from scholarly exploits by researchers and enthusiasts. According to them, people should look beyond superficial definitions that seek to explain relativism and its relevance in society (Kendall 19).
They should search further understanding regarding the concept of relativism because it embodies other factual aspects. Historical evidence shows a correlation between truth and relativist ideologies. In most cases, the essence of truth manifests in personal attributes and values that define human action. Experts argue that truth is relative and usually manifests in such fashion and orientation.
However, this reality gives rise to the view that truth must be relative to something (Kendall 21). This gives rise to divergent relativist views that precipitate contrarian views with regard to definition and propagation of relativism. Different variations and dichotomies arise from interpretations relayed by scholars and theorists.
Although such views are mostly similar in orientation, they adopt different approaches that generate ideas regarding relativism and its relevance in social contexts (Kendall 25). Most scholars converge in their explanations and assertions that truth exhibits considerable levels of relativist approach to meaning and interpretation.
In light of such views, it is vital for researchers and scholars to underline their thought in a manner that supports further probe into the relative nature of truth. In their submission, they argue that relative truth manifests in propositional sense as opposed to its general presentation and inclination.
Devoid of such understanding and accurate view of truth, it is difficult for anyone to devise or formulate a rational approach to the relative nature of truth and moral conduct in society (Kendall 29). Proponents hold contrarian views regarding the propositional nature of relativity with regard to truth.
Some argue that propositional truth mostly depends on individual values and attributes that control subjective realities of interaction and engagement. This school of thought asserts that personality traits and attributes are central to development and propagation of truth depending on context and prevailing circumstances (Kendall 33).
Another counter argument argues that relativity arises from ability and willingness to establish favourable actions that assist in creation of assessments and evaluative procedures. Such assessment plays an integral role in actualization of ideals that enable realization of the objective nature of truth.
Although most scholars attest to existence of relative orientation to truth, they hold different views regarding factors that trigger and facilitate such relativism. For instance, some scholars view semantics as a viable trigger for relativism while others consider individual attitudes as key to development and propagation of relativist ideologies (Kendall 44).
Several philosophical scholars derive inspiration from arguments that support semantics as the sole source of relativist inclinations. The semantic view articulates the essence of truth as bearing various facets that characterize its interpretation and propagation in relation to application in social and philosophical discourse. They emphasize on content as a determinant of truth and variables that embody such scenarios (Daft 65).
This variable emanates from prevailing circumstances and factors that determine individual action and reaction in different situations. In this case, evaluation is an important factor because it enables progressive articulation and establishment of relative truth. Another area of concern for truth is the characters of those involved in particular discourse.
In the case of character as a determinant of truth, there is need to understand and appreciates its role as a parameter with regard to consideration of truth and rationality in social settings (Daft 65). This consideration accounts for contextual realities that form basis for arguments and counter arguments that govern discovery of truth and other areas that complement its relative nature.
In most cases, the value of truth anchors on verifiable manifestations that relate to content of specific discourse. Content suffices in relation to contextual engagements among individual.ls in social deliberations. In evaluation of nature and quality of truth, circumstances play an important role because they guide and prompt human action.
This means that what is true in a particular context can manifest as less true in another depending on circumstances and prevailing conditions (Daft 68). Therefore, it is unusual for people to generalize truth regardless of contextual manifestations that surround such truth.
Various parameters of truth give credence to realization of structures that determine the essence and rationale of definitions and considerations with regard to social engagements (Daft 71). This gives room for determination of various factors that underline truth regarding issues that take place in society.
It is difficult to comprehend an absolute nature of truth because such situations negate reason and willingness to investigate and appreciate the dynamic and generative nature of truth. Whenever experts discuss truth in scholarly contexts, they maximize benefits that arise in relation to such endeavours and discourse (Gard 22).
Human beings strive to develop systems that enable them to articulate and establish favourable avenues for realization of core ideals and aspirations with regard to the relative nature of truth. This makes it possible for scholars to understand and create favourable discourse for exploits that embody determination of truth and other related ideological facts (Gard 23).
Different social contexts assign different meanings and approaches that define the overall nature of truth. Issues manifest differently depending on prevailing circumstances that define and govern human action with regard to such contexts. Relativity of truth creates impetus for probity and general acuity in pursuit of germane aspects that characterize its propagation and realization in social contexts (Gard 24).
Different societies ascribe meaning to truth depending on how they approach and articulate various situations of engagement and discourse. Such variations give credibility to the reality that asserts the relative nature of truth with regard to how people perceive and relate to interaction and discourse in social contexts.
It is possible for society to assign different meanings to similar issues because it all depends on context and prevailing circumstances (Gard 27). This reality is indicative of the relative nature of truth because it highlights core issues that determine creation and propagation of truth. On the other hand, individuals have ability to manipulate truth in order to align it to their personal needs and considerations.
In such scenarios, people apply subjective values in order to guarantee and justify personal beliefs and standards that favour their stand (Gard 29). In cases where people present similar sentiments on an issue, there is high likelihood for consensus and unison regarding truth and its essence in society. Such reality changes when people develop differences regarding prevailing issues and realities.
Such conflict of interest presents opportunity for development of ideological thresholds that govern determination of truth as a relative entity (Edel 43).
This makes it possible for individuals to investigate and understand situations before deriving conclusions with regard to existence of truth in its relative sense. In other cases, there could be situations that bear similar content but one is truthful while the other suffices as false (Edel 47).
Conclusion
Propositions that seek to assert the relative nature of truth are usually inclined towards development of structural frameworks that offer guidelines on this reality. There has been debate on essence of the concept of truth relativism. This concept seeks to entrench the inability to define truth as being absolute and rigid (Edel 48). For instance, truth that suffices in one context may not apply in a different or relatively similar context.
Under this premise, truth depends on particular terms of reference and prevailing conditions that define such situations. In fact, truth usually depends on particular parametrical thresholds such as cultural inclination and lingual orientation (Edel 54). Indeed, it is evident that truth is relative to situations and circumstances that define social engagements.
There are several areas in this case study that illustrate relativism. Relativism has been defined as the belief that human beings have their own unique versions of the truth. This simply means that different people have different thoughts about the truth.
Willard and Henk interpreted differently what transpired on that day where a supervisor by the name Victor attacked a subordinate. In the end, Willard and Henk came up with different recommendations based on their own thoughts and their own interpretations of the situation.
Willard suggests that the company should cover Tommy’s medical bill. According to him, the situation needs to be monitored closely to ensure such an incident never occurs again. On the other hand, Henk believes that Victor’s contract should have been terminated. According to him, both Victor and Tommy were guilty of violating the rules and regulations of the company.
However, Victor did not have any right to physically abuse a subordinate. Tommy, on the other hand, should have been wearing the necessary protective gear while working. Willard also recommends that the company should cover Tommy’s medical bill.
Relativism is also evident when Willard conducts investigations in close association with Tommy’s team mates. They all seem to conclude that Victor learned his lesson. They believe that he would never repeat such an action in the future since he had personally apologized to Tommy. They also believe that Victor would be in a position to handle such a situation in the future without letting his anger control his feelings.
Relativism is also evident when the law department of the company and the external consulting attorney concur that it would have been unlawful to terminate the contracts of both Tommy and Victor.
Moral reasoning framework allows managers in businesses, companies, organizations, and other institutions to make sound decisions based on what is right or wrong. The managers or individuals applying this theory must use logic to make their decisions.
In this case, Victor should have followed the procedure to make sure that Tommy wore his protective gear while working. Victor acted out of anger and ended up attacking Tommy. It is unethical for a manager or a supervisor to attack a subordinate employee. Victor, in this case, should have acted in a mature manner by reporting Tommy to the company’s administration since he had warned him severally.
Tommy did not deserve to be attacked by Victor even though he was on the wrong. Victor had consistently been warning him on the importance of wearing his protective gear while working.
If the managers of the company had applied the moral reasoning framework, Victor would have been found guilty of assaulting a subordinate employee. Such behavior is intolerable and Victor should have been automatically relieved of all his duties as the company conducted further investigations. Tommy should have been fully compensated by the company. He also should have been punished for not following the company’s safety policy.
This would encourage other employees to follow the company’s rules and regulations in the future. Employees who do not follow the company’s rules and regulations should face disciplinary action. The company should also come up with procedures to be followed to ensure managers are able to solve such issues with their subordinates amicably. Managers should also be forced to take anger management classes to ensure that in the future, they are able to control their emotions.