Question 1
While the other arguments for moral relativism may be right, the argument from cultural diversity is the most convincing. Admittedly, different people perceive moral values in a unique manner depending on the societies and cultural backgrounds. In respect to this, it is justifiable that what is moral for one person may mean otherwise for another person from a different society or culture. In fact, the society through its material culture determines what is right or evil for its people. For example, in some societies blood sports are acceptable as a recreation activity. On the contrary, some cultures regard such sports as evil and unacceptable. In essence, cultural diversity explains that values are either wrong or acceptable depending on how an individual is taught to perceive them from the time he is, or she is a child. Although some values may be correct for one or more cultures, cultural diversity will always allow for some differences.
In fact, the objection that moral relativism is pragmatically self-refuting is the most convincing argument. In essence, this means that moral relativists are unable to avoid being influenced or committed to particular values or norms.in respect to this, the concept of rationality depends on the place and time in reference or in question. Some values, however, such as open-mindedness are found in nearly all acts of communication and any variation is not possible, a situation that makes them universal.
Question 2
The nature of ethics makes sense in a manner that acting rightly or being virtuous is not a matter of adhering to rules, but rather knowing how to act at the right mean between opposite ends or extremes. In respect to this, virtues entail depositions of character that makes people behave or act in a particular way in response to similar circumstances. People learn virtues through developing habits, and nobody can claim to be born virtuous.
Admittedly, Aristotle is right when he says that virtues have something to do with moderation. Each of the virtues is only helpful to a person when it is expressed in its natural mean. More precisely, this means that the virtuous habit of action reflects an intermediate between the contrasting vices of deficiency and excess. Usually, it is true that too little or too much of something is always wrong; the right measure lies in the mean. Notably, virtue is a path to a happy life because actions that lead to virtues contain genuine happiness rather than creating mere amusement.
Question 3
According to Aristotle, no virtue that is satisfactory or good at its extreme. In essence, to derive benefit from a virtue, it has to be expressed in a manner that makes the action lie between the two opposing vices.
Personally, the mean is very instrumental in obtaining the right measure when it comes to spending money. Admittedly, sometimes using money presents an ethical dilemma in the sense that overspending creates extravagance even as minimal spending is a reflection of stinginess. In my life, I have encountered a situation where I was at a loss between spending and saving money. My father had given me money to spend in the best possible manner to add value to my life. Apparently, I started thinking of very expensive things like cars and clothing. However, I realized that as I spent more money, I would get little value. On the other hand, spending very little money and saving the rest would diminish the value I would derive out of the money. In these circumstances, I had to strike a mean, which would help to ensure that I obtained happiness as a true value out of my spending. In respect to this situation, I realized that generosity was a mean between the excess of stinginess and wastefulness. Because generosity is a mean between the two extremes, I had to be flexible in the expression of generosity to prevent operating at the extremes. Undoubtedly, moderation in this situation was the determinant of expressing generosity as a mean to derive value out of spending the money.
