Exam 3: Is Everything Relative
Examine Elshtain's reasons for being judgmental, and for thinking nonjudgmentalism is "dangerous nonsense." Are they convincing? Explain your answer.
Jean Bethke Elshtain, a political philosopher, argues that being judgmental is necessary for a functioning society and that nonjudgmentalism is "dangerous nonsense." She provides several reasons for this stance, which can be convincing to some extent.
First, Elshtain argues that being judgmental is essential for maintaining moral and ethical standards in society. Without the ability to make judgments about right and wrong, individuals and communities would have no basis for holding people accountable for their actions. This lack of accountability can lead to chaos and moral relativism, where anything goes and there are no consequences for harmful behavior. This argument can be convincing, as it highlights the importance of having a shared moral framework in society.
Second, Elshtain suggests that nonjudgmentalism can lead to a lack of critical thinking and discernment. She argues that being nonjudgmental can result in a reluctance to make moral distinctions and to confront difficult ethical questions. This can lead to a society that is unable to address and solve complex moral dilemmas, as people may shy away from making difficult decisions or taking a stand on important issues. This argument can also be convincing, as it emphasizes the need for individuals to engage in critical thinking and moral reasoning.
However, some may find Elshtain's reasons for being judgmental and her criticism of nonjudgmentalism to be less convincing. Critics may argue that being judgmental can lead to intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination, as individuals may use their judgments to justify harmful actions towards others. They may also argue that nonjudgmentalism can promote empathy, understanding, and acceptance of diverse perspectives, which are important for fostering a more inclusive and compassionate society.
In conclusion, while Elshtain's reasons for being judgmental and her critique of nonjudgmentalism may be convincing to some, they may also be subject to criticism. Ultimately, the debate over the value of being judgmental versus nonjudgmental is complex and multifaceted, and it is important to consider a range of perspectives on this issue.
Rachels believes that infanticide among the Eskimos
A
Rachels argues that often the differences between cultures lie not in their values but in their
C
If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are
What would you do in Dr. Stockmann's position? Should he leave town as his wife and brother advise?
Midgley insists that real moral skepticism could lead only to
Suppose someone accuses you of misunderstanding the true nature of the Samurai's actions. What would this response imply about your accuser's views toward other cultures?
What are the implications of Dr. Stockmann's actions for the issue of moral relativism?
Midgley believes that understanding and judging other cultures is possible only in Europe.
Is Ruth Benedict correct in saying that our culture is "but one entry in a long series of possible adjustments"? What are the implications of this statement?
According to Enoch, what are the weaknesses of moral relativism?
In "The Enemy of the People," Dr. Stockmann is a symbol of cultural relativism.
What are the implications of Benedict's claim that morality is simply whatever a culture deems normal behavior? Is this a satisfactory equation? Can you apply it to the institution of slavery or the Nazi policy of anti-Semitism?
Is the problem portrayed in Ibsen's play relevant today? If so, what are we doing about it? Explain your answer.
What is the key conflict in "The Enemy of the People"? How well does Dr. Stockmann deal with it?
According to Midgley, cultures cannot make judgments about one another.
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)