ethical relativism vs moral realism

(DK80b1): “Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not.” Protagoras brand of ethical relativism suggested that morality is subjective to the relative context, such as culture, within a family, or even autonomous authority. In the Plato’s Theaetetus Socrates and Theaetetus have a discussion that centers primarily around the epistemology of Protagoras and Heraclitus that knowledge is only perceptions. Socrates puts forth his objections and alternatives. His alternatives likewise center around his theory of the forms and the objectivity of this theory. If knowledge is perceptions to Protagoras, then you can see how morality would be subjective. If I say it is wrong to eat a horse, and someone from Europe says that it is not wrong to eat a horse, then the wrongness of that statement is relative to the culture. Taken further, if one person perceives x as wrong and another person perceives x as right the truth value is relative to an autonomous authority. The distinction in this the ethical nihilism of Gorgias is that there is still belief that these statements have normative value that is truth value.

Plato’s point of view is different as it is quite objective. There are moral truths and they are true or false independently of an agent. His viewpoint is based largely on his theory of the forms. He believes that there are two worlds one is the real world and the other is our world. Within the real world resides eternalness, knowledge, truth and forms. In our world there is the idea of becoming, senses, opinion, and objects. Everything in our world is subject to the real world. If x is not in the real world there would be no...

... middle of paper ...

...e if this is considered morally wrong then there is a whole group of people who could be subject to others belief about their sexual behavior. Short of obtaining the knowledge of absolute truth how could a person presume to be correct in this matter.

Now with all that said, the weakness of both ideas are in the application, and the strengths are the logic behind them. I doubt that either of these philosophy giants put forth these theories for any other reason than to further obtain knowledge about morality in general in hopes that a greater good be achieved through this knowledge. I can see why ethical nihilism might be appealing, but that almost feels to me like throwing in the towel, you can see something is there, but it is unclear what it is and you are tired of trying to figure it out. Socrates would be disappointed. He would also think a puppy is cuter.