Is moral relativism feasible when we witness a situation like the one presented on the film?
The not existence of moral universal values is one of the premises ofthis raising ideology of ethics called relativism. With this basis we may not have any guide to recognize what is right or wrong or why is it right or wrong, just because the truth belongs to everyentity and their principles are relative between one another. A lot of arguments can be given to support the idea of relativism, and many of them can be considered “valid”, but adopting this belief canlead to a lot of disagreements and problems such as indifference or violence between two groups. Just as the difficulties we observed on the film.
The whole idea of relativism I think iscontradictory, because we cannot forget that there are universal moral principles as a parameter that are absolute ideas and that those ideas apply to everyone no matter de circumstances, they apply to everyone.And relativism leads to the idea of a complete absence of them. “…it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that thetruth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons” (Gowans, Chris, 2008, p. 1). And according to this concept, it is not possible to consider or dimensionevery individual idea just because all of them have the same chances of being true, so we cannot establish universal beliefs for being applied to everybody in every situation.
The situation ofgenocide presented in the movie “Hotel Rwanda” guides us to identify universal values, like the one in which we all know murder is wrong, no matter the place, no matter the context; this situation has nojustification because it affects the dignity of others in their willing to live. And that’s why the movie help us to give value to others life. Value Paul gave, when he changed the idea of saving only...