Relativism and Morality - Essay Example

It was just brave to put forth that some things are just basically wrong not because they are “never questioned or breached in practice, but because they never should be” (88). Goodman’s disagreed on Matilal’s idea of pluralism that norms differ from one society to another. Goodman argued that while Matilal’s assertion in many aspect are true, the concept of what is right and wrong is not just about common consent but unanimity. For what is agreed by many may not necessarily mean right.

In plain language, mob rule is not always right. Such, Goodman puts forth the four areas which human experience where right or wrong is constant regardless of time, culture, understanding, religion or circumstance. It may already be a common knowledge but Goodman, put coherence and logic why these acts are not to be done in the first place. They are; (1) genocide, politically induced famine, and germ warfare; (2) terrorism, hostage taking, and child warriors; (3) slavery, polygamy, and incest; and (4) rape and female genital cutting.

We already know that murder is wrong much more when it is done on mass scale which what happens in genocide. Goodman succinctly put the argument what we already that “all living beings make claims to life”. . It is not even limited to a tyrant’s prejudice, but can also be glossed over with good intention such as Maoist Cultural Revolution where “he was ready, he bragged in 1958, to sacrifice 300 million lives which composed half of China’s population, “for the victory of world revolution”.

Goodman also hit the head of the nail to bury the very reason why terrorism is utterly wrong. His reasoning stood above the excuse of justifying terror that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. The excuse of subjectivity, that one group may disagree while another may find it laudable was paled with Goodman’s exposure and giving terror a face why it is just wrong. It willfully targets non-combatants and intend to intimidate and attract attention at the cost of many lives.

Its obscenity and flagrancy as an act was exposed when Goodman rightfully conveyed that in terrorism, “the more helpless the victims, the more lurid the light. . . The more devastating the damage, the more inhumane, the more avidly is it sought by the strategists, ideologues, and theologians of terror”. The vileness of intention which was unmasked by Goodman just stripped terrorism any of its political justification that made it acceptable to some sectors in society. The excuse of addressing terror’s “root cause” also became moot as Goodman explained that soft pedaling the act of sowing fear make them pushes the pedal complicit with those who seek to profit politically from the mayhem.

Equally unacceptable as murder in any form or method, is also the exploitation of individual be it in the form of slavery, prostitution or any form of exploitation