Answer:
Moral Objectivism holds that there are objective, universal moral principles that are valid for all people. Louis Pojman proposes one such moral principle that he believes is binding upon all human beings: “It is morally wrong to torture people just for the fun of it.”
Explanation:
<span>That non european lands and peoples were open to conquest and exploitation by the europeans</span>
I’m pretty sure it’s c because they all are know for them
The answer is, in the particular case of the Koran, is more complex than a very Manichean yes or no. The reason is that according to core Islamic theology, the Koran is the direct, verbal revelation of Allah (Islamic God) to Muhammad and it establishes a set of religious principles that are considered to be literal, universal, perfect and thus unchangeable since it would be a mortal sin to change the perfect “word of God”. In most Islamic countries, Islam is considered by their constitution to be the sole and/or major source of legislation for all spheres of society and since Islam is the perfect, immutable, infallible and final revelation of God to humanity it is <em>haram </em>to question it. Now, there is Sharia law which has four different sources:
- The Koran.
- The <em>Sunnah </em>(those <em>hadiths </em>who are considered authentic).
- The <em>Qiyas </em>(analytical reasoning of the former two).
- The <em>Jima </em>(the juridical consensus of the previous analysis).
In a nutshell, there is the direct word of God, then there are the actions, words and deeds of its prophet Muhammad (the hadith) and then there is the traditional examination of such precepts by Islamic Scholars and the consensus achieved after such examination. Officially, according to Fundamentalist Islamic traditionalists, no interpretation can be made of that but since there are several schools of thought in Islam, there are <em>de facto</em> different interpretations and also there is the fact that in the modern world Islamic countries have combined Islamic jurisprudence with Western jurisprudence which is not considered to be divine therefor the answer would be a yes, but a yes that contemplates such caveats. Furthermore, the extreme schism between fundamentalist Islamic traditionalists and more moderate law makers leaves the question unanswered until one of these groups prevail.
