Answer:
Moral relativism entails disregarding those values if it does not lead to a positive result.
Explanation:
Rachel disagrees with this and maintains that whatever the result, amoral is still right.
For example:- The assassin tells John where Paul is. John knows where Paul is and he suspects that Paul is being killed by the killer too. In this case, though telling the truth is a good thing and lying is unethical, it would be fitting if John were to say a lie and not reality.
I disagree with Rachel because it is the favourability of the verdict which gives its moral meaning. A person helps people, for example, a person is noble, a person helps society, and all such factors offer a moral meaning. If the moral does not have such principles or consequences and could contribute to the death of a person and aid a killer, it will no longer be a useful moral construct, and this is what moral relativism is a pleasing construct, as the administration states.
