Research Paper on:
Objectivism v. Ethical Relativism

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
psychologically takes place when we make moral judgments. Does society create morality? Is morality a fixed and objective feature of the cosmos? Am I doing anything more than expressing my  feelings when I make moral judgments?" (Anonymous Moral Philosophies Through the Ages ages.htm). Introduction Moral philosophy has long been a subject for serious examination and serious study. There  have always been numerous views concerning morality, its position in humanity, its changing conditions, it origins, and its existence in general. Two very powerful forms of thought concerning morality are  ethical relativism and objectivism. In examining these two philosophies, we argue that one must clearly establish the existence of morals in the first place if one is to argue for  either ethical relativism or objectivism. One author supports this approach in stating the following: "Before we can actually start analyzing and evaluating the competing types of ethical systems, we must  first answer a more basic question of Non-Normative Ethics: Is there any reason to believe there is such a thing as morality? That is, if morality turns out to be  just another name for doing what I (or we) want to do, why should I bother studying ethics? Dont I already know what I want to do? Are there really  any obligations which reach me from outside the realm of my own desire? To put it into a more pithy form: Is morality objective or subjective?" (Anonymous Relativism versus Objectivism  relativ.html). Clearly, if one can argue that morals are not really what philosophers assume them to be, both philosophies cease to have any foundation. In the following paper we present  an examination of morals in general, and illustrate how both ethical relativism and objectivism demonstrate weaknesses when seen in this light. The philosophers discussed in the presentation are Herodotus, Thomas