Moral relativism proposes the view that standards of morality and ethics can vary from person to person or culture to culture. This type of philosophy accepts that no one view is greater than another view. Moral relativists are not obliged to live by a specific moral code. Moral relativism violates human reason and natural law. The Sophists were skeptics who doubted that there could be any certain knowledge. They also concluded that since knowledge was relative, morals were then relative as well. Protagoras was a philosopher among the Sophists. He was said to be the oldest and one of the most influential of the Sophists. Also, Protagoras held that moral judgments were relative. He denied that there was a uniform law of nature in regards to human behavior that all people could come to discover. He went on to say that each society has its own laws and moral rules, and that there was no way of judging which was to be right or wrong. Another well-known Sophist was Thrasymachus. He believed that laws are to be made by the ruling party for its own interest. These laws would then be used to define what was right. This would then mean that morality was reduced to …show more content…
He wanted to rebuild the notion of truth and establish a firm foundation for moral judgments. Socrates was a man committed to the pursuit of truth. He was convinced that the assured way to reach ”certain knowledge was through the practice of disciplined conversation.” (p. 33 text book). This practice of disciplined conversation was called dialectic. Through this dialogue, the final result would be a clear statement of what is meant. Through this method, Socrates would often expose contradictions hidden in other people’s beliefs. Although Socrates did not believe you could fully come to know the truth, he did believe that you could come closer to clear and fixed concepts of the