1

Name:
Professors name:
Course:
Date:

Some have argued that the diversity of cultural values across different societies should tell us
something about the nature of morality, namely that the truth about moral principles and actions
is "relative" in some sense. Is this view correct? Why?
Introduction
It is very true, according to my research and a lot of information that I have so far
gathered concerning the diversity, the nature of morality is affected whether directly or indirectly
by the diversity of our cultural values. Just to be firm on the topic in discussion morality in
business ethics is purely viewed as the principles that concerns the distinction or real exact and
correct picture of view between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. The factors that just
distinguishes such clearly and entirely depends on the on the moral standards set forth by the
governing society at large. They can marge and distinguish all good and bad characters hence
teaching the rest in the society especially the young ones on how to up bring them. When people
do anything whether good or bad it will largely depend on the morals set forth. One good
behavior can be bad on the other societal ground set up and vice versa holds the truth. For in the
Hindus cultural practices, they can encourage and tolerate the act of remarrying with the same
family set up and there is no bad omen as such. In other cultural set up, like the Christians, it is
not really accepted at all and such behavior is rebuked. Morals depends and is really shaped up
by the people in question.
Part 1
It is always empirical that whenever people do things or considers some elements to bring
notions of good morals some argue that such moves always make people to be happy. Does it
mean that the moment you do something good and commendable, can bring happiness to one life
or even people around such an individual? The answer relies so much on the good and bad
behaviors towards the society and many people at large. On the other hand, whatever bad things

committed to people always are taken as sad scenarios. Is this true? Let us wait and see the
following deductions. From the above information, people always applaud and considers that
whatever good thing must be honored and bring happiness, the vice versa holds the truth since
one can be sad as a result of bad things done towards him or her or even done to a group related
in one way or another.
As many people struggle to become happy, they normally sacrifice in one way or another
just to ensure that the future is well protected and in the long run should they meet any unhappy
behavior they tend to take risk and hold on to some situations provided there is hope that after
some considerable time they will be happy after getting what they had really waiting for comes
to pass. This terms on good and bad should be really be defined on the really context of human
experience but not on the typical notion. This will in turn, coin and trim the human morals and in
the same notion a persons behavior is directed and having some principles towards themselves.
Good or bad morals will always shape and defines an individual to correct set according the
societal expectation.
Part 2
With many cultural setups it is very much evident that human beings acts on their self-interest
lines and in the long run it affects their behaviors whether negatively or even positively.
Whichever the means ways, a person morals standards will be defined according to the societal
expectation towards such individuals. When human beings works and directs everything to their
own self-interest, in most of the time it is termed as the egoism. This is really what drives many
and give a true character of an individual having put into considerations a lot of many factors and
more so any corrective mechanisms so observed. In the interest of human beings and others they
should always act in such a manner that the overall effect when it comes to persons move on the

distinction in behavior should exactly fit on the expectations of the society or even people
around. When one acts in centrally or astray form the expected morals, they are taken as bad
people from the whole society. It therefore seen as the act and the overall notion of someones
behavior as many people would wish from them therefore be coined in such a manner that good
and bad scenes can be clearly be distinguished at ease. Being good or bad as categorized under
persons behavior will depend on persons and the community general definition and exact know
how on their cultural behaviors. This is more evident to many aspects and fields of life. As one
can clearly put it and indicate is all about the sayings that goes like abortion is a crime, this
would have triggered a person intentions to say whether is good or bad but according to the setup
of what the society check it al and confirm on the same. Morals should not be made judgmental
rather a more of a personal levels presentation campaign to ensure that as the verdict is passed
on, it clearly defines and provide us with the best judgmental.
Part 3
Another good arguing ground is really focusing on the analytic ethics. This subcategory
will really show that not unless a person or an individual as being prescriptive and descriptive,
first of all, as an individual decides to be methatetiscists should in all means analyze the ethical
language and how they do happen. This really depends on the real correct measure on what we
really mean when we say that some has been conducted by the said person and taken as good. On
the other hand people should note that they analyze the rational foundation of the ethical systems
or even on the logical reasoning on matters that will clearly define and bring into a good and
closer conclusion on the relative moral behavior of an individual. The logical structures and
reasoning becomes the order of the day and on the same note, people in questions should

concentrate on the content of the discussion that intern will reveal the exact behavior on someone
in relative to the exact persons individual perception.
Part 4
Ethics and aesthetics in yet another field under the discipline of the philosophy that will clearly
assist us to coin and turn such expectations to a more of lively scenarios. This deals with the
study of values in the art or beauty on really what is good or bad according to what they real see
from them. When something is really taken under a close observation of whether good, bad, right
and wrong mostly used in a non-normal since the same words we normally use in a normal sense
are also used in a moral scenario. The aesthetic used to describe the former is clearly indicated
and explained from the above foregone subtopics and also the subcategories. I will just mention a
few but important information. For instance when one person just express some concern on an
animal dog by just referring it to be as good does not qualify it to be morally upright good. It
simply mean that the dog does not bite, and or that it could mean it will only bark when strangers
invade a homestead or threatens the participants and the owners of the homestead. In a more
general term we simply mean that something is clearly good since it can be used to fulfill certain
terms and conditioned effect hence making such statement only applicable when our missions
has been fulfilled therein.
Part 5
Just to wrap up, morals and manners or general term on etiquette usual assist many
people to shape culture and overall behavioral changed observed form an individual. This has a
greater effect when it comes to understanding of behaviors. Good manners observed from people
clearly depicts the different kinds of persons that one can get. On the same note good personal
etiquette is so much vibrant especially when the society term it as the good behavior seen from

the individuals. In a more general sense character is influenced by the way people etiquette and
moral is well directed. Other then can term it as whether good or bad and makes a lot of sense.
Conclusion
Individuals good or bad morals is defined by many factors as clearly depicted from the
discussion. People generals behaviors will then be affected according to the societal
expectations under the categorization of good or bad morals.

References
http://infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/morality.html
Vaughn, B. "The history of diversity training and its pioneers", Strategic Diversity & Inclusion
Management, pp. 11-16, spring 2007. DTUI.com Publications Division: San Francisco.
Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Article 1
Al-Rodham, Naf R.F., Sustainable History and the Dignity of Man: A Philosophy of History and
Civilizational Triumph, LIT, 2009.