Moral Relativism In Sports

In a world where views on morality vary throughout every religion and through every person in the world. I believe that killing for sport is perfectly fine, it is one’s hobby and everyone has hobbies they love. These hobbies vary from knitting to playing video games all the way to snowboarding. When it is specifically looked at in an individualistic many questions raise from down under and groups of all sorts start to fight. PETA will protect any animal for the right to live and they say that killing animals for sport is wrong. On the other side you have hunters that get enjoyment in killing for sport. It comes down to the statement above being viewed as an opinion within individualism. It has many positive through the ability to think whatever …show more content…
These consist of; Moral disagreements, Can’t condemn Actions, Moral Comparisons, Moral Fallibility, Moral Language, Collective Action. In an argument about abortion the two sides will voice their opinion, one side will be for it as the other will be against. In moral relativism they are both right, this is because, they are both just stating facts about their own opinions. In moral relativism that is completely all right. (Moral disagreement) Under moral relativism it is impossible to condemn actions, because everyone is allowed to have an opinion that is right to them and their values. Philippine President Rodrigo has urged citizens to kill suspected drug dealers and users. Duterte “I don’t care about human rights, believe me.” His views are not subject to criticism, another problem with moral relativism. Under moral comparison Hitler’s acts are viewed as the same of Gandhi acts. They are comparable because their opinions are both viewed as his are right to him. The rest of the problems with moral relativism is that no matter what anyone’s views are they can’t be seen as wrong. Its viewed as an opinion of we approve or disapprove. This is because of the way cultural relativism and subjectivism is set up. It may appeal to people but it allows everyone to be right in their own eyes. Moral progress is also a problem because a person’s deepest beliefs can be true by definition, in result they …show more content…
You have two sides behind this the side that is for and the side against it. The side that is for the killing of animals for sport will argue that our ancestors did it so we should be able to. A famous case of Walter Palmer, he led a lion from a protected sanctuary, into legal shooting ground. He was attacked by many people saying that his acts were immoral and wrong but he insisted it wasn’t. The groups that are against killing animals for sport will claim that he acted moral wrong on killing that lion, and others act morally wrong to. They leave traps in the woods for animals to get trapped in and suffer for days to come, until they are killed. They stay in the traps starving and injured waiting for the arrival of the killer. They believe that all animals have a right to live and shall die naturally under their own will rather than someone