[ORDER SOLUTION] Ethical Relativism

Write an approximately 4-5 page essay discussing your personal views regarding the possibility of outside cultures criticizing Brazil for its environmental policies or Nigeria or Senegal for their cultural practices of female genital mutilation (FGM), in light of the arguments made by relativism, objectivism, and pluralism.Is it possible for us to make valid moral judgments about other cultures?  Or does respect for the world’s diversity require that we refrain from making such claims?  Does that mean we have to live with practices in other cultures that we find morally wrong?  Can we find any legitimate basis for making cross-cultural moral judgments?  Or does the fact that we can’t make cross-cultural moral judgments mean that we also can’t make any judgments about the practices in our own culture?We’re starting out by looking at some articles about the fires in the Amazon and about the topic of female genital mutilation (FGM).  What do you think about these topics?  Can someone who’s not from an Amazonian country tell Brazil to stop destroying the rain forest?  Can someone from a country where FGM is not practiced make a judgment against it?  On the flip side, must we simply tolerate actions that we find harmful to the planet as a whole or which cause such serious harm to women?Be sure to explain the arguments that a cultural relativist, a moral objectivist, and a moral pluralist would make regarding judgments by outside cultures on the practices of Brazil, Nigeria, and Senegal.  You need to demonstrate a strong understanding of each perspective, so carefully explain the key ideas behind each theory.  Be sure to discuss the arguments made by Rovane, Shaw, Harman, and Kekes. Then, explain whether you agree or disagree with each theory.  What about each theory do you find persuasive, and what do you find problematic?  Which view makes the most sense to you, and why?  Feel free to argue for any theory, but be sure to explain each view in detail and accurately.  Imagine that the person reading your paper has never heard of any of these theories before, so strive to explain them as completely and as clearly as possible.You may only use course materials–the reading assignments, PowerPoint presentations, and lectures.  Papers must be in 12-point font and double-spaced.  No title page is needed–just put your name and UC 410 in the top left corner of the first page–and you also do not need a reference or works cited page.  Refer to each author by last name, to make it clear that you are discussing their ideas (cite “PowerPoint” for any general points in a PowerPoint that aren’t specific to one philosopher).  Alternatively, you can use any citation format you prefer (APA, MLA, Chicago). Your grade will be based on the following factors:  (1) Did you correctly explain the main tenets of ethical relativism (including the distinctions between descriptive relativism and cultural relativism); (2) Did you accurately describe the key elements of the philosophical criticisms of ethical relativism (which we have broadly termed moral objectivism); (3) Did you correctly explain the key ideas behind moral pluralism; (4) Did you correctly discuss some criticisms and strengths of relativism, objectivism, and pluralism; and (5) Did you provide strong reasons in support of your own views regarding the approach that you find most persuasive. I use holistic grading, so I assess the paper as a whole, rather than assigning points to specific elements.  However, my primary focus is on how well you demonstrate an understanding of the key ideas of relativism, objectivism, and pluralism.  A paper taking a clear position towards one theory without fully explaining the underlying ideas will receive a lower grade than a paper that demonstrates a clear understanding of the three theories but which fails to explain or justify why one theory is more persuasive. Feel free to take any position regarding the usefulness or validity of any of these ideas.  What I am interested in is not the result you reach, but how you get there–can you offer some good reasons for your position.  A good reason is one that requires a response by someone who disagrees with you but is not rejecting your ideas out of hand–it makes them say, “That’s a good point, but…”Again, remember to imagine that your reader has never heard of these ideas before, so strive to give an explanation of the theories that will teach someone how to understand the competing ideas.  If you do that, you will have shown me that you understand these concepts.  An A paper will demonstrate a full and correct understanding of the ideas, a B paper will not go into as much detail and may have some minor mistakes, and a C paper will just talk about the theories without explaining how they function while also making significant errors.