Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism

When trying to contrast moral relativism to Ligon situation, it can be viewed as neither right nor wrong, but instead takes a neutral position.   According to situation, Ligon committed “Food Fraud” fooling his costumers in thinking that he was selling low fat donuts, and rebranding Cloverhill’s doughnuts under his brand. In this situation from a moral relativism perspective, rebranding Cloverhill’s doughnuts and selling them intended no harm since it was done legally through a contract. However, from Ligon’s perspective, he did not break the law, and perhaps what he believed was “low-fat” donuts is different from what FDA specifies as “low-fat.” Thus, one cannot judge on what food may be considered “low-fat” and should instead be determined by manufacture and the consumer, and the FDA should not have any role on determining what food are fitting.  

From a Christian perspective, Ligon should have known from the start what he was doing was wrong. False - advertising to his consumers, believing what he did was not illegal, goes against Christian ethics. As a Christian it is vital to be truthful in whatever you are doing. It’s not a surprise in Exodus 20:16, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is there for a reason.   The truth is basic to God’s nature. As Christian thinker, we believe heavily in our values and avoid moral relativism as much as possible. Especially when the manipulation of the truth may possible be at stake.
Finally, when contrasting the way moral relativist and Christian thinks, it is important to understand the core concept of both. Moral relativism, is culturally based, and mostly based on the person’s individual choice. People decided what is right for themselves and has been heavily intergraded in our society today. Ligon believed he wasn’t doing anything illegal and was being blamed for something that a lot of companies do. With a moral relativism perception, it can be assumed what Ligon has done cannot...