Answer:
c its really easy you going have to use your brain a little more
Explanation:
christians and jews
Jews and Muslims
muslims and christians
Answer:
Could you please help me with the recent question of mine on my page? It is the one saying "Most recent recent question", I will give u brainliest and 20 points! :))) X
Explanation:
Answer:
This quote is a critique of moral relativism and subjectivism. One approach to ethical philosophy is that morals are different for other cultures and individuals, and that there is no such thing as absolute good or bad exterior to the human mind and emotions. This quote disagrees, saying that their are exterior Moral absolutes.
Socrates was not a moral relativist, his were what is called Virtue Based normative ethics. He believed the virtue of WISDOM, knowledge of the good, was what made people do good. Anytime anybody does something bad it is because they are IGNORANT of the good thing to do. He reduced all evil to lack of education or misunderstanding the situation. Socrates believed that there was an absolute Good to know and not that each person had their own concept of good.
Explanation:
Socrates's quote implies that a morality system based on relative emotional values is unreliable and untrue. This can be debated in terms of moral relativism, Kant's categorical imperative, and ethical naturalism in modern moral philosophy. The discourse on these philosophies outlines the complexity and diversity of moral standards, underlining the relevance of Socrates's view.
Socrates's perspective, as conveyed in the given quote, implies that a system of morality based on relative emotional values is unreliable and untrue. This outlook can be applied to the concept of moral relativism in the modern world, which suggests that moral beliefs are wholly dependent on the sentiment of individuals or the community. Therefore, moral truths don't universally exist and vary from one individual or culture to another.
In contrast, philosophers such as Kant maintain that morality isn’t based on emotions but is grounded in rational principles. Accordingly, Kant bases his moral philosophy on the categorical imperative, assessing actions based on universal applicability and the respect for individuals as ends in themselves rather than means to an end.
There is also a position referred to as ethical naturalism, which posits that 'what is good' aligns with natural facts about the world, superseding individual emotions or beliefs. Thus, good actions fulfill our human nature while evil ones distort it. This contrasts with moral relativism, as it assumes an objective moral reality.
Ultimately, the ongoing discourse on moral beliefs and standards indicates the complexity and diversity of moral philosophies. Socrates's stance points towards a more objective system of morality, which is still a subject of rigorous debate today.
#SPJ3
Colonists had against King George Ill?
Why?
Answer:
The grievances/complaints was a section from the Declaration of Independence where the colonists listed their problems with the British government, specifically George III. The United States Declaration of Independence contains 27 grievances against the decisions and actions of George III of Great Britain. Historians have noted the similarities with John Locke's works and the context of the grievances.[1] Historical precedents such as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 had established the principle that the King was not to interfere with the Rights of Englishmen held by the people. In the view of the American colonies, the King had opposed the very purpose of government by opposing laws deemed necessary for the public good.[2]
Answer:The grievances/complaints was a section from the Declaration of Independence where the colonists listed their problems with the British government, specifically George III. The United States Declaration of Independence contains 27 grievances against the decisions and actions of George III of Great Britain. Historians have noted the similarities with John Locke's works and the context of the grievances.[1] Historical precedents such as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 had established the principle that the King was not to interfere with the Rights of Englishmen held by the people. In the view of the American colonies, the King had opposed the very purpose of government by opposing laws deemed necessary for the public good.
Explanation: