Create a dialogue between three philopshers in which they discuss the following question: The epistemology of relativism is assumed to be true by many people. Are the customs of a theocracy, like Iran, or the Taliban which enforces a religious law, that promulgates: legalized censorship, subordination of women, imprisonment and execution of theological critics and dissenters, capital punishment (stoning) for adultery, apostasy (changing oneâ??s religion), homosexuality etc., are equal to the moral and political values of (freedom of life, liberty, equality under the rule of law, consensual government, free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion etc.). Are there moral principles that stand independent of society and historical circumstance, or is ethics relative?
Philosopher number one: The epistemology of relativism is very important in my estimation, and helps to dictate many individual's views in relation to their lifestyle, as compared with the lifestyles of others. The theocracy that enforces the religious law that takes place in many Islamic nations such as Iran, is composed of a harsh and rigid legal code. In many instances, it seems that these legal codes give little space for margin of error, as well as little room for variances in sentencing. Due to this fact, I would have to say that to wholeheartedly follow the legal codes and punishments that are spelled out in religious texts would be morally wrong, due to the fact that the accused have very little recourse in regards to reducing their sentences based on the exigency of the circumstances involved. Religious law seems to take very little account of the circumstances involved in any infringement upon its statutes. So I would have to say that this theocracy is ...
The philosophy of ethics is determined. The expert creates a dialogue between three philosophers in which they discuss the questions.