Correlatively, a free society is one that makes it easy to be free.
Hauptli I believe that our descriptions are deeply contextual—they are dependent on context. Thus to describe a room as empty is, at least in the normal contexts, not to say that there is no air in there—instead that there are no people there, or no furniture depending upon the context.
Similarly, our evaluations are also deeply context-dependent. This is, clearly, not the case, however, and this leads, inevitably, to the question: Unfortunately, these factors lead some to adopt a Arguments against moral relativism orientation.
Some individuals claim that there is not a universal, absolute, rational evaluative perspective. It is only a first step, and you need to be aware that relativists will have reasonable philosophical responses to the arguments I offer.
First, suppose relativism is true. This does not undercut the need for reflection and resolution when confronted with moral quandaries. Consider the following analogy from Tom Beaucamp: The problem needs resolution, and among reasonable persons resolution will come only through hard thinking and perhaps considerable negotiation and compromise.
Similarly with moral problems, even if extraordinarily different viewpoints do prevail, a resolution is still needed.
From this perspective, moral reflection that transcends human differences is needed even if relativism is entirely true. When two parties argue about some serious, divisive, and contested moral issue Effectively, we can say, few relativists can remain relativists when they move from the calm realm of theory to that of practical realm of action where our roles as practitioners and evaluators comes into prominence.
In fact, like many critics, I believe that those who assert it run into problems immediately.
Or we had better be: Like Protagoras, we abandon all distinction between being right and thinking one is right. That is, the relativist who asserts the truth of relativism seems to presuppose objectivism. What is often behind a commitment to relativism is a misunderstood commitment to tolerance however.
When they are confronted with the possibility that there are such individuals or groups, the tolerant people must say that they want to tolerate them and their values. But if they do so, they end up committed to an acceptance of intolerance!
Since we are rational creatures that is creatures capable of acting, evaluating, and valuing on the basis of, or from, what is in conformity with what is judged rational intersubjectivelywe can respond to inconsistencies in valuations and evaluations, to our fallibility, or to diversity in values and evaluations by taking up the activity of rational examination of our values and evaluations from within our own valuational perspective.
As Simon Blackburn notes, …to have a stance is to stand somewhere, and in practical matters…that means being set to disagree with those who stand somewhere else. If relativism, then, is just a distraction, is it a valuable one or a dangerous one?
I think it all depends. Sometimes we need reminding of alternative ways of thinking, alternative practices and ways of life, from which we can learn and which we can have no reason to condemn. We need to appreciate differences…. But sometimes we need reminding that there is time to draw a line and take a stand, and that alternative ways of looking at things can be corrupt, ignorant, superstitious, wishful, out of touch, or plain evil.
It is a moral issue, whether we tolerate and learn or regret and oppose. Even though the readings are not available on the site, I think that these lectures do elaborate the argument I have offered here by providing some examples that can facilitate the discussion and help defend the conclusion I have offered.
In Germany Armin Meiwes advertised on the internet for individuals who would be willing to be eaten by him. Meiwes wanted to be a cannibal, and he wanted a willing subject to be his lunch, so to speak.
Bernd Brandes replied to the inquiry, and after meeting and discussing the situation fully, they agreed to participate in a joint activity. Meiwes killed Brandes consumed at least 44 pounds of his flesh.Arguments for and against Relativism. Rachels considers an argument involving the Greeks who think that eating the dead is morally impermissible and the Callations who .
A common, albeit negative, reason for embracing moral relativism is simply the perceived untenability of moral objectivism: every attempt to establish a single, objectively valid and universally binding set of moral principles runs up against formidable objections.
Well, it depends what you mean by "moral relativism". If you mean something like "what's right and wrong is a cultural question and that's all there is to it", then that's a kind of naive moral relativism and there are good arguments against it.
Catalogues the different types of relativism, including moral relativism, along with the main arguments for and against each type.
Harrison, Geoffrey. “Relativism and Tolerance.”. What are some arguments for and against moral objectivism or moral relativism? Why do you subscribe to one or the other? Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike.