Define ethical relativism.
Think about an example of corrupt behavior. Which corrupt behavior did you choose?
Is the corrupt behavior you identified considered normal behavior? If so, by whom?
Does the fact that the behavior is or is not normal make it good or bad behavior?
If the majority considered the corrupt behavior as acceptable, would it no longer be considered corrupt?
In American culture, is there a simple majority rule, or are there subcultures within American culture that can influence what is considered the majority rule?
Applying the concepts of ethical relativism, how would you suggest preventing or limiting the corruption issue you chose?
In your opinion, is ethical relativism a good method for preventing or limiting the corruption issue you chose, or would the theories Kant, Mill, or Aristotle work better under these circumstances? Compare ethical relativism to these three theories and explain which is better at avoiding harm and promoting justice.