morally right relative to the culture and the time it occurred in, but it is not right for our present culture. Relativists would claim that cultures are unerring at their times and that moral progress does not exist. For example, if you did not like vegetables as a child but you like them now, you did not make moral progress; you merely changed your opinion. Relativists would then go from this simple example to say that the same is true with regards to slavery. We did not make moral progress, our culture just changed its opinion. Intuitively, this seems false. It does seem that our
culture has made moral progress that is objectively good. If moral progress is not possible, then tomorrow our culture could just decide to kick all women out of universities and not allow them to continue any education. This clearly would not happen though, because our society has made moral progress so that women are able to have equal access to higher education. If moral progress is not possible, then it would almost seem that all moral claims are meaningless because they could easily be overturned. In this paper, I have sought to show that a common argument for moral relativism does not hold up against logical analysis. In addition, I have provided a direct argument against moral relativism. In modern society, which is focused on acceptance and tolerance of others, it is easy to see the appeal of moral relativism. All cultures want to be equals to others regarding their moral code, and moral relativism appears to accomplish that on the surface. However, it seems that it would be far more unifying if we accepted that we are all on the same moral playing field. Rather than focus on the cultural differences that divide us, we should look to the objective universals that unite humanity.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 4 pages?
- Spring '14