herodotus
This concept that absolute right and wrong exist is known as moral absolutism. It asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the context or circumstances. Proponents believe that moral truths are objective and universal, rather than subjective or relative.
Ethical relativists such as Protagoras and Friedrich Nietzsche believed that moral principles are subjective and vary based on individual perspectives or cultural norms. They argued that there is no universal standard of right or wrong that applies to all situations or societies.
An example of a relativist statement is "What is considered right or wrong depends on the cultural context in which it occurs." This suggests that morality is not absolute and is influenced by societal norms and values.
The word "moral" can function as both an adjective and a noun. As an adjective, it describes principles of right and wrong behavior. As a noun, it refers to a lesson or principle taught by a story or experience.
No, being right and wrong are mutually exclusive. Being right means that your statement or belief aligns with reality or truth, while being wrong means it does not. It is possible to change your mind and go from being wrong to right, or vice versa.
Morals refer to a person's sense of right and wrong behavior, often influenced by personal beliefs, values, and societal norms. They guide individuals in making ethical decisions and help shape their behavior toward others.
herodotus
herodotus
Sophists
Sophists
yesNoAnswer:There no absolute standards for right or wrong, as a consequence this cannot be answered
The belief that there is no absolute moral orientation, and no absolute right or wrong, is called Moral Relativism. Among the most prominent contemporary philosophical defenders of moral relativism are Gilbert Harmann and David B. Wong. Notable historical philosophers and those of similar profession that proposed and described forms of moral relativism include the Greek historian Herodotus and sophist Protagoras, and the Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzhi.
No. There is no "right way" and "wrong way" of writing pseudo code, let alone qualifying with "absolute". However, a pseudo code is "wrong" if it cannot be understood, or it is incorrect in semantic (what the code tries to describe, solve, etc)
that sophists thought that knowledge was a way to improve ur life and Socrates thought that there was an absolute right or wrong
he was just smart enough to know what was right or wrong
Sophists were a category of teachers who specialised in using the techniques of philosophy and rhetoric for the purpose of teaching.
Ethical relativists such as Protagoras and Friedrich Nietzsche believed that moral principles are subjective and vary based on individual perspectives or cultural norms. They argued that there is no universal standard of right or wrong that applies to all situations or societies.
Subjectivism.