Final answer:
The student's question pertains to the consistency of moral statements regarding stoning as a punishment. It explores the philosophical concepts of ethical relativism and the challenges it faces, including the search for universal ethical principles. The consistency of these statements is debated in the context of normative ethical relativism and cultural versus universal morality.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student is dealing with a question regarding the consistency of moral statements and ethical relativism, which is a philosophical topic.
The question assesses the logical coherence between the view that stoning is morally wrong and the view that if a culture endorses stoning, it is morally right.
The statement marked 'c' rejects both of these views as being inconsitent, as it implies that morality should be universal and not subject to cultural variations. Statement 'd' asks us to evaluate both 'a' and 'b' together.
In philosophy, particularly ethics, Normative Ethical Relativism suggests that what is morally right or wrong can vary from culture to culture, and something can be deemed correct simply because it is the predominant view within that culture.
However, the criticism includes the idea that ethical relativism does not account for moral reforms initiated by minorities that challenge the majority's viewpoint.
Moral absolutism and cultural relativism are often contrasted, and the search for a third alternative is a common philosophical endeavor.
Socrates, for example, rejected the moral relativism of the Sophists and sought a more universal ethical foundation.
The Euthyphro Dilemma touches upon this debate by questioning whether morality is an arbitrary command by God or an absolute truth that stands independently.