User:Stewartjordan625/sandbox

Possible Suggestions

 * 1) Edit the lead of the article I am adding to.
 * 2) The student in the Wikipedia class suggested this, stating that " the lead can be updated to include brief sentences to include these additions." At first, I was thinking that I should try to contribute to the lead by adding a few sentences that summarize the additions that I have worked on. But I fear that the article may sound a bit repetitive with that addition. I am adding to these sections because I think the original article does not provide an in-depth definition for a non-philosophy major or person with no philosophy background would understand.
 * 3) Add a chart with images of philosophers that contributed to this topic.
 * 4) There would not be any charts that would have this kind of information. The best chart that could be created for this article would have to be created by me and I do not think that I am skilled enough to create an important piece of information like that. Also, there are many philosophers that have contributed to any philosophic issue over time and I think it would be nearly impossible to correctly focus in on the origin of a philosophic topic.
 * 5) Add links to other Wiki articles
 * 6) I will definitely add links to my edits. The only places I can add a link would be for the Wikipedia articles for Nihilism and Universalism. This will allow anyone who is interested in learning more about those two philosophic concepts.

Edit History
The first edit I did was to expand the definition about moral objectivism. In my article, I believe that the article did not provide an adequate definition. Because of that, I researched articles about moral objectivity and summarized the position to provide a definition. The next edit was adding a section called "Critique of Moral Objectivity." For this section, I summarize how objectivity can be formulated and try to use that to explain a critique about moral objectivity. The last edit I did was adding a definition for moral relativism. Similarly to the moral objectivism definition, the moral relativism definition is not sufficient enough in my opinion. I defined the term and compared it to two other common moral philosophies, Nihilism and Universalism.

Possible addition to the lead of the article
Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well being of the people in the society that follow it. Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through Subjectivity.

Possible definition for moral relativism
Moral relativism is the view where a moral code is relative to an agent in their specific moral context. The rules within moral codes are equal to each other and are only deemed "right" or "wrong" within their specific moral codes. Relativism is opposite to Universalism because there is not a single moral code for every agent to follow. Relativism differs from Nihilism because it validates every moral code that exists whereas Nihilism does not.

Possible section addition called "Critique of Moral Objectivity"
Morals are created when the social norms in a society will influence an agent to perform an action. Over time, agents will become attached to the approved behavior and will be rewarded in society for upholding the desired actions. These norms force agents to think about what it takes to satisfy these norms. From the reinforcement of the social norms, an agent can have the reasons for the norms ingrained in their decision-making process. All of this can mean nothing to an agent if they do not consider what their future version of themselves will become. Once that inconsideration of the future takes place, an agent might only care about the present and make decisions based on the advancement of themselves rather than being considerate of social norms.

Possible addition to moral objectivism
Moral objectivism depends on how the moral code affects the well-being of the people of the society. Moral objectivism allows for moral codes to be compared to each other through a set of universal facts than mores of a society. Nicholas Reschar defines mores as customs within every society (i.e. what women can wear) and states that moral codes cannot be compared to one's personal moral compass.

Sources for Objectivity (philosophy)
Moral Objectivity, Nicholas Rescher


 * Rescher, Nicholas. “MORAL OBJECTIVITY.” Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 25, no. 1, 2008, pp. 393–409., doi:10.1017/S0265052508080151.

Constructing Normative Objectivity in Ethics


 * Wong, David B. “CONSTRUCTING NORMATIVE OBJECTIVITY IN ETHICS.” Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 25, no. 1, 2008, pp. 237–266., doi:10.1017/S0265052508080096.

What is Moral Relativism?


 * Wreen, Michael. “What Is Moral Relativism?” Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, vol. 93, no. 365, July 2018, pp. 337–354. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pif&AN=PHL2371955&site=ehost-live.