Human Nature/Happiness/Moral Relativism
				By: J.P.L. Lubek


Ancient philosophers not only believed that human nature exists; 
they even argued that we should live in a particular way that a certain way of 
life will bring us true happiness precisely because of our nature. 
Aristotle, for instance, thought that the proper function of human beings was to think well, 
from which he derived the idea that the best life is one of contemplation 
(also to love wisdom and truth - Lubek), is the life of a philosopher. 
In the Stoic fragments, we repeatedly find the claim that living well means 
living in accordance with nature. Epicureans believed that humans by nature 
try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; a good life, they argued,
is thus one that accomplishes precisely that. 
Ancient Greek philosophers share this approach with 
Buddhist and classical Chinese philosophers: certain ideas about human nature, 
about what it means to be human, are foundational to their accounts 
about what it means to live a good, moral, ethical (or bad) life VS moral relativism.


Moral Relativisms:


Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. 
Morality that advocates to each her own and those who follow it say: "Who am I to judge?"

Moral relativism must have some set code of rules. Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.

Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, 
says that moral standards are culturally defined, which is generally true. 
Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, 
such as honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures 
when people evaluate moral standards around the world.

Meta-ethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring 
the moral values of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on 
their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe 
that moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.

Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other
differing moral values, given that there are no universal moral principles. 
Most philosophers disagree however. For example, just because bribery is 
okay in some cultures doesn mean that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it.

Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, 
which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical question. 
Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would say: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
Similarly Tadeusz Nida (Mining Engineer and Mining Professor) would say: 
"Jeśli wejdziesz między wrony, musisz krakać jak i one!!!"

Jan Pawel Lary Lubek