Explanation:
Although the material is banned, I will keep the person in abeyance unless there is any proof against his allegations. Even if nothing is confirmed, picking such a person who is a compulsive liar would be in my own choice. I can not endanger my company and its workers by recruiting an employee who may be off - the-record suspect, if the offense is not confirmed. I comprehend that it is not legitimate to act on the prohibited information, but an act of a non-social nature is equally a ban on society, and I, as a recruiter, can not promote the same thing.
Cops are the good guys if you’re not breaking the law. Then they become the bad guys.
Answer:
This is an answer that requires a personal opinion. I will give you my opinion with an explanation so you can understand it and if you want, you can modify it.
Explanation:
I agree.
What this question proposes to us is that there is no absolute truth when it comes to morality.
There is no one truth about morality that applies to everyone as if it were a rule. And this happens because there are many sets of subjective norms, beliefs, values and customs that direct or guide the behavior of groups of people in society and that vary depending on each person.
Something that is moral for a certain cultural group may not be for another in another part of the world.
That is why in my personal opinion I agree that there is no objective 'truth' in morality. "
