Day in day out, human beings are judged for whatever decisions they make or whatever step they take on a given subject. However, the most intriguing question is on what basis do we make a judgment about what another person does right or wrong? According to Herodotus, a Greek philosopher, the Persian King Darius once told a group of Greek men to eat their fathers' bodies after their death, but they refused no matter the price. Darius then said some Callatians that they ought to burn their fathers’ bodies upon their death like Greeks do instead of consuming them. Callatians were disgusted by the King's proposition and did not accept it at whatever price. Regarding this issue, the King alluded to the fact that what is right or wrong depends on the exercise of morality for what is good east of the river may be equally bad west of the same river. The paper thus discusses the epistemology of human judgment of what is right or wrong as it is in informative speech essays

The Idea of Diversity and Tolerance

At this point, I would highlight that as the Persian King was inclined to claim that morality was the main principle, when it came to making a judgment, the issues of morality were defined differently across different cultures. Cultures and morals are as diverse as human communities in the society; thus, everyone stands to be judged by literally anybody who does not share the same culture as the decision-makers. This is the danger of absolutism whereas people make decisions, they are not afraid of making errors that they fear not being tolerated by those judging their actions.

The Idea of Relativism

Relativism is built on moral objectivism whereby it is theorized that there are universal moral principles (universalism) acceptable for all people. Relativism is an open perception that disregards any universal moral guidelines but rather follows moral guidelines that are valid about a way of life or choice. However, if morality is a king, then there is yet another problem of moral skepticism which postulates that there are no moral principles whatsoever. Thus, it suggests that what is strongly regarded as morally right or wrong is different from an individual to individual and society to society. It is further evident that entirely moral principles draw their acceptance from validity in culture, and there is no moral principles accepted by all.

Diversity Thesis in Relativism

This thesis alludes to the fact that there are as many moral principles as there are societies in the world. For example, an issue like murder is inherently immoral in every society. Thus, it emerges that there is a deeper moral measure underlying such issues but it comes to the fore to depict its more noble face. If cultural diversity is proportional to different moral measures, then it is neutral and is seen to defend some universalism. In retrospect, admitting universalism (denying complete cultural relativism) fails to discredit ethical relativism, and by large, finding universal principles does not prove their objectivity.

Dependency Thesis in Relativism

In this case, the back lies with the bases that morals do not exist in a vacuum, and learning morals is involuntary just like breathing. Thus, for decision makers, based on moral, applications of guidelines rely on a given set of cultural predicament. Therefore, for any non-relativist, it becomes welcome for certain relativity in the interpretation of given moral guidelines. For Orientals and the Occidentals, for instance, the similar principle of respect is applied differently - the former cover their heads and uncover their feet as a show of respect, but the latter do the converse.

Ethical Relativism

In this epistemological account, moral guidelines result from a culture which varies across communities, and each community will formulate different valid guidelines. Beliefs also vary at the personal level. For example, the value of an alive cow is different to a butcher and a farmer. How these people are oriented and their expectations about the cow are different. In this knowledge level, it becomes apparent that moral standpoints change over time. The south states of the USA were pro-slavery during Abraham Lincoln's time, but today they view slavery as inhumane. There is, therefore, no overall moral measure binding on everybody.

The Idea of Subjectivism

For subjectivists, something moral is what one feels great about after doing it while immoral brings guilt after carrying it out. There is no ground for interpersonal evaluation for personal actions. Thus, based on this theory, if Adolf Hitler felt good about his genocidal actions, then he was morally right. However, in a community setting, this would be inadmissible.

The Idea of Conventionalism

Conventionalism holds that there are no objective moral guidelines and any acceptable guideline is validated by cultural acceptance. The mainstay here is tolerance, and thus judgment surpasses a person's culture and one withstands other people's cultures. However, some cultures lack the principle of tolerance. Conventionalists cannot criticize the intolerant people because they are supposed to tolerate their stand. How ironic does that sound?

Trying to establish who judges our actions as right or wrong, a person would be differently judged depending on which school of thought described above he/she adheres to. Thus, the best answer to who should judge is individuals themselves. A person should be judged only by their conscience and intuition rather than any other person or any society.