One system of ethics is moral relativism which argues there isn’t really right or wrong. While morals can vary by culture I think that a strict moral relativism is a flawed philosophy. There are some areas in which there is a right and a wrong. In fact, the APA code defines these and to that extent is a document more on the side of moral absolutism. However, since situations and people vary there is still gray area that the code does not explicitly cover. I think a more useful approach would be moral pluralism, which proposes there are alternate rights which may be in conflict, and which human experience and norms promote one over the other.
What do you all think about this debate?
You must log in and be a buyer of this download to submit a review.