Part 1 Q2

Ans: Every one became fond of some one who stands up and fights for what is right for everybody even
when in between and in the middle of passionate and energetic opposition. Figures and character which
are Gandhi, Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr. came to our mind whenever thinking about fighting for the
rights. They were all counter-cultural (whose values and norms are differ). And it is a mutual agreement
of all of us that they affected the world in better and good way. Any way if moral relativism is true, then
it is not so difficult for the society to differ between that what is “right” and what is “wrong” and
majority of the culture determines the “right” choice. But it is lead to some illogical consequences that
who are attempting to reform immoral practices in society (e.g removing racism) are really immoral
because they are standing in opposition to the majority of culture. This one really thought to be the very
powerful logic to deny the moral relativism.

Our society and culture contains most of the people who accepts “anything goes” approach and place it
under the title of morality until someone is hurt. But most of the people cannot live continuously as
moral relativists. Why? It is because of the fact that deep down in their mind and souls they know and
differ between right and wrong. They; having issues that they are not the relativists about. For only the
one time when you challenge them they will come out to show their true colors. But in fact it lies under
the universal truth that everybody has their own worldview. This is as it should be that because deep in
our selves we admit that relativism is not the right way forward. For once we consider this fact, then we
will start to have many important chats and conversations that what is truly good and beneficial for us
and what is bad and evil. Paul describe this point when he wrote:

“Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively
obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for
their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.”

The cultural relativism’s implication is troublesome in a couple of different ways. First, it seems to be the
implication and the phenomenon which is of moral reasoning and moral deliberation is a wastage of
time. If we really want to know that what is right and what is wrong then we should find it in our
culture’s practices and laws mutual beliefs. This picture won’t let moral reasoning in it. At very end
cultural relativist has due an explanation that why we held to the picture of moral deliberation in a good
way to choose that what we should do. At second, a surprise of cultural relativism shows us a surprising
result that who has been accepted as great moral revolutionaries and reformers: Jesus Christ, Mahatma
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., etc., were all at the mistake when the forwarded against the
persuading of moral code. And more we can take out from this is that they were in minority and did not
hear what they have to say. And by contrast the figures who ought to maintain the moral status
whatever that will be will always be seems right in the light of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism
does not always disallow us to criticize other cultures code but stops us to criticize our own.