2) Discuss your own ethical views concerning this important but controversial topic of female circumcision. Consider where you stand not only morally on this topic, but also on where you stand with respect to both divine command and ethical relativism in light of this topic. In doing so, consider your own moral dilemmas, and compare your response here to how you would respond if we replaced the ethical dilemma with the act of say "Abraham's sacrifice of Issac" or perhaps something like "eating cows," "driving on right-side of road," or "wearing certain clothing, e.g. Dodger baseball cap." What differences matter here and why? Be specific and provide examples/references from the Module Readings to support your claims.

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions,  genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense. 

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

Having my first discussion assessment due soon but could use help, I have to explain if if I agree or don’t agree with them (I agree with both of them but not sure what to write) the response needs to be 6 sentences in length for each.

First Task: The Exercise for Your Imagination
John Rawls introduces his reader to several concepts fundamental to a thorough account of the idea of justice: Liberty; equality; rights; and fairness. But he is deservedly of philosophical interest because of the way he fulfills his aim, which is “...To present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant” (Pojman 620, Lt). Rawls introduces an imaginary device in order to establish the conditions under which “the principles of justice for the basic structure of society...would (be accepted)” (620 Lm). It is these conditions, Rawls’ “initial position of equality,” and his device for establishing them, “the veil of ignorance,” that I would have you think about for your exercise (620 Lm and 620 Rm): “The veil of ignorance...ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (620 Rm).

As an exercise of the imagination, you are asked, as Rawls asks us all, to imagine yourself in the “initial position of equality” under “the veil of ignorance.” Discover for yourself if doing so is or is not conducive to a genuine sense of fairness, as you prepare to make “one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely ...the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (621 Lt).

Second Task: The Writing Assignment
Please number your responses:
1. Describe your experience. Take the time to do so as completely as you are able.
2. How did this exercise affect your understanding of the section titled “The Reasoning Leading to the Two Principles of Justice” (624 Lm). It requires an effort to do so, but try to justify your response with direct reference to your own experience of imagining and reading, not to associations or thoughts gathered from any other source. Provide\ relevant quotations to focus your reader’s attention.
3. Relate your experience to Rawls’ “Two Principles of Justice,” especially concerning his denying “exchanges between basic liberties and economic and social benefits” (624 Rb). Be as descriptive as you are able, using direct quotations as support.
4. What is your opinion of Rawls’ “General Conception” (627 Rb)? Use quotations to assist in your explanation.