Relative morality is someone who always tries to judge a situation before making a decision. this means that sometimes the rules are broken, because that course of action does not seem to be the best one.
That depends on whether you regard moral values as relative or absolute. If relative, then it's an opinion; if absolute, then it's a fact that racism is wrong.
Aristotle defines moral excellence as a habitual disposition to choose the mean between excess and deficiency in moral actions. This mean is relative to the individual and is determined by practical wisdom. Moral excellence is developed through practice and guided by reason.
People can't be moral, there deeds, there thoughts and actions can be moral. Moral is a relative term. Say for an employer for cutting cost cutting not salaries but extra allowance seems moral to him. While employees may consider it has moral or immoral depending on there thoughts and views on particular thing. But to answer your question in one sentence - The person who always think of others first and good (without and bias) for other is a moral person.
The three main theories under the comparative justice framework are moral universalism, cultural relativism, and moral pluralism. Moral universalism asserts that certain moral values and principles are universally applicable, while cultural relativism argues that moral standards are relative to individual cultures. Moral pluralism suggests that multiple moral frameworks can coexist and be valid.
Objective relativism is the belief that moral principles are relative to individual or cultural perspectives, meaning there is no universal moral truth. This concept can impact moral decision-making by leading individuals to consider different viewpoints and cultural norms when making ethical choices, rather than relying on absolute moral standards.
Moral relativism is the philosophy that rejects the idea of universal values and argues that moral principles are relative and vary depending on cultural, societal, or individual beliefs.
No. Since Socrates did not write any books, even though he thought that nothing is more important than living a good life it is difficult to know just what he thought about the relativity of value judgments about moral and political questions. Aristotle would be at least somewhat sympathetic to the idea that moral and political truth is relative, but he would insist, as would Plato, that what most counts is the moral character of the person making the claim (rather than the claim abstracted from an actual situation). In other words, for them, a value judgment is true if a good person thinks it is true. Aquinas would disagree that moral and political truth is relative; since, for him (unlike for the other three) God is responsible for creating truth, truth is absolute although, of course, it is sometimes difficult for human beings to apprehend it. .
herodotus
Ethical relativism denies universal moral principles, claiming that moral codes are strictly subjective. Ethical situationalism states moral principles are objective, and should be applied differently in different contexts.
Relativism looks at the circumstances behind moral belief.if all thigs are relative then there cannot be anything that is completely true within individuals.whereas absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or absolutely wrong,regardless of the outcomes or the intentions behind the situation eg.they believe stealing is wrong in all circumstances even if someone is stealing food for a starving family
im is a prefix for moral
A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.A relative reference.