1) Consider the crimes of rape, pedophilia, or torture (non-consensual) for sexual gratification. Are such acts wrong
in themselves or by their consequences? If so, can you square the wrongness of these acts with moral relativism?
Consider such crimes from a subjectivist point of view, then a conventionalist point of view. Can either form of moral
relativism square with the belief that such acts are objectively wrong? Consider such acts from the standpoint of
Gilbert Harmon: whether rape e.g. is wrong depends of the “agreements of particular groups”. So, e.g. rape is
wrong in one group, but under the agreement of another group it’s maybe ok. So, if you were a member of a group
who believed that rape is wrong, but visited a group that believes it is ok, would you commit rape among that
people? Put differently, if it is morally permissible for one group to do an action, and no standards exist beyond what
different groups happen to believe, then why shouldn’t you feel free to try it? After all, how can you criticize their
view simply because it is different? Can your choice to try it, be defended in a non-circular way, or a way that does
commit you to a contradiction as soon as you act? How would Hospers handle such actions? How might Pojman?
2) Consider the principle of reciprocity, which we have found in every moral philosophy that we have studied this
term except for Harmon. Assume that this principle is merely relative, and not as Pojman claims, objectively
binding. Imagine explaining how a human society anywhere, could function without the principle of reciprocity.
Does such a society exist? Could it exist? Explain.
(( I need 2 pages for the first question and one page for the second question and I need it from your opinion no reference ))