I learned that one criticism of the Romantic Period(ex. "follow your heart") is that its emphasis on feeling led to what some consider to be an age of subjectivity. As an example of such subjectivities, teacher mentioned that many people today decide moral questions--what is good and what is bad-- based on how they feel about the matter at hand, rather than through an understanding based on "fixed' moral and religious truths. If he is right, as a matter of fact, that morality today has become highly subjective, are there dangers of such a subjective approach?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 5:43 pm ad1c9bdddf
This is a terrific question! There are two ways to approach this: from the standpoint of cultural relativism, and from the standpoint of ethical subjectivism. Both positions claim that morality is determined by people, either by cultures or by individuals. As such, both are relativist moral theores. But they are NOT the same theory as each other. In other words, you cannot equate cultural relativism with ethical subjectivism.
<br>Cultural relativism asserts that each culture has practices and rules of conduct that are determined by the society in which they are practiced. So, for example, cultures that practice female ...
Wireless Networks Question
Please help with the following problem.
Mobile IP was intended to work with legacy correspondent hosts and legacy applications. However, some advantages may be gained if correspondent hosts are aware of mobility in certain ways.
a) If a correspondent host is able to do IP-in-IP decapsulation, it may be able to communicate more efficiently with the mobile host despite the presence of ingress filtering. Why?
b) If a correspondent host is able to do IP-in-IP encapsulation, it may be able to communicate more efficiently with the mobile host than is possible with standard Mobile IP. Why?View Full Posting Details