a defense for relativism

. . .
In other words; there are so many different people with different opinions, not only across cultures and societies but also time, that it is reasonable to see how moral truth can be considered different for all of these groups. Shaw outlines different theories which intend to weaken the relativist’s argument, including those of; Naturalism, Intuitionism, and Emotivism, which might I add are all themselves flawed in some way, but no real conclusion is reached as to how perfectly they prove to fault relativism. But then I ask why a rational person would spend any time defending or relying on something that they cannot fully understand. 30) based on the fact that relativism cannot completely rule out the possibility of objectivity. Moral Relativism, put quite simply, states that there are no objective truths or morals, but that these are conditional and dependent on a number of factors. It has two main claims; a) “there are no universally valid standards” (Waluchow, p. Shaw even says that they do not do so but that they “take us a fair distance toward justifying a determinate set of moral rules” (G&H, p. Shaw makes a valid inference, that just because we cannot come to realize what this objective truth might be, doesn’t not mean that there is no such thing. 68) and b) “the validity of moral standards is dependent on cultural acceptance (Conventionalism) or personal choice or commitment (Subjectivism)” (Waluchow, p. Shaw is trying to undermine the meta-ethical diversity theory on the basis that just because we cannot see it does not mean that it’s not there. Take for example the fact that when we discuss diversity in ethics we do not only look at diversity at this present time, but also look back to the past, even in class we discussed cases such as the Nazi’s, surly we cannot sit down and speak to Hitler himself and discuss his moral principles and debate about how we should go about deciphering a new universal moral system. The first states that there is universal morality and the latter suggests that morality is dependant on time, person and place. In conclusion Shaw states that “we need not worry further about the claims of the relativist” (G&H, p. 68), the first of which the diversity argument we are looking at focuses on. He presents the example of having “different factual beliefs” (G&H, p.

Common topics in this essay:
Intuitionism Emotivism, Subjectivism Waluchow, , Moral Relativism, diversity argument, meta-ethical relativism, argument meta-ethical, moral system, diversity argument meta-ethical, argument meta-ethical relativism, objective truth, objective standard, rule possibility, g&h p18, live life, possibility objective, Naturalism Intuitionism, rule possibility objective, question live life, claim objective truth,

Approximate Word count = 1839
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)

Already a member? Click here