Final answer:
The validity of the statement about Pojman's findings on students' preference for moral relativism over moral absolutism cannot be ascertained without further information. The concept being discussed relates to the philosophical debate between moral relativism, which suggests morality varies by cultural or personal context, and moral absolutism, which advocates for universal principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Pojman found in his introduction to ethics and philosophy, that students by a 2-to-1 ratio affirmed a version of moral relativism over moral absolutism, cannot be confirmed or denied as true without additional context or a direct reference to Pojman's work. The question tackles the debate between moral relativism and moral absolutism, where moral relativism suggests that moral principles are relative to cultural, individual, or circumstantial factors, while moral absolutism holds that certain moral principles are universally applicable. This is a subject that has been extensively explored in ethical philosophy, with many philosophers critiquing moral relativism and seeking a third alternative that could provide a universal ethical framework.
LibreTexts™ discusses that normative ethical relativism posits that ethical standards are only valid within particular cultural contexts and that even criticisms from minorities do not hold against the majority's moral perspectives. However, reform movements and changes within societies suggest that this theory may have limitations. Philosophers continue to search for a universal basis for ethics, often turning to human reason as a potential source of universal ethical principles.