Philosophy Now Forum

Hey all, my name is Brandon and am new to the forum. I am hoping that someone here can help me understanding what the "meaning" of two points are. I am writing a paper on some class readings of sections of Plato's Republic and we are graded on six points. I understand 4 of them but for the life of me I can't figure out the other 2.


The first one is:

Explanation of nature of ethical issues with textural support from Plato and Frankl


The second one is:

Critically assess ethical relativism with examples


Now I tried to break them apart and research the terms such as ethical relativism, textural support, etc but haven't had any luck. I emailed my professor about them but he hasn't responded yet, so I'm hoping someone here could help me understand what the questions are specifically asking so I know what to look for throughout my readings.

intercooledgn wrote:Hey all, my name is Brandon and am new to the forum. I am hoping that someone here can help me understanding what the "meaning" of two points are. I am writing a paper on some class readings of sections of Plato's Republic and we are graded on six points. I understand 4 of them but for the life of me I can't figure out the other 2.


The first one is:

Explanation of nature of ethical issues with textural support from Plato and Frankl


The second one is:

Critically assess ethical relativism with examples


Now I tried to break them apart and research the terms such as ethical relativism, textural support, etc but haven't had any luck. I emailed my professor about them but he hasn't responded yet, so I'm hoping someone here could help me understand what the questions are specifically asking so I know what to look for throughout my readings.

I don't know much about Frankl, but Plato is an absolutist when it comes to ethics. In other words, Plato's ethics are objective therefore there must exist a universal standard of morality that exists over and above every day opinions on ethics.According to this view, actual good and bad, right and wrong actions stand alone. This is regardless of the consequences of the action. In relation to this we can see that Plato is in favour of virtue ethics.

If you have a working knowledge of Plato's theory of Forms then you will see how it fits in with his ethics.

Textural support could mean one of two things. Firstly, you take a position on a issue and uses the authors opinions and quotes to support your argument. On the other hand, it could mean taking information from the texts and formulating your own opinion of the texts.

I would assume that ethical relativism in this respect is designed to give an alternative ethical theory. Perhaps as a contrast. There an many different types of relativist theories in relation to ethics, but basically it would mean that moral judgements are not true or false. In other words, unlike Plato there is no objectivity in any absolute sense. Very generally speaking morality is judged on a particular point of view.

Plato is against the idea that everyone can have a moral view and that somehow this moral view is acceptable. For Plato man is not the measuring stick for morality. From Plato's point of view we could also say that morality is objectively true just like mathematics.


This is as much as I can tell you based on the information you have given.

"Textural support could mean one of two things. Firstly, you take a position on a issue and uses the authors opinions and quotes to support your argument. "

that is what it means

Ginkgo is correct on the rest as well...

-Imp

intercooledgn wrote: Explanation of nature of ethical issues with textural support from Plato and Frankl.

Viktor Frankl?

The first one is:

Explanation of nature of ethical issues with textural support from Plato and Frankl

You'll have to read the sections of their text dealing with the nature of such. The nature of ethical issues from Plato is very simple, just think about his (Socrates') discussion with that guy who said right is might (in other words of course, that sentence was not produced in such early texts I think).

The second one is:

Critically assess ethical relativism with examples

Is ethical relativism a good thing? Show examples of how it might not be. I presume you've done reading on ethical relativism?