moral relativism. It can be shortened to the following: (1) Moral codes are different across cultures (2) If moral codes are different across cultures, then an objective moral code does not exist (3) Therefore, an objective moral code does not exist, and what is considered morally right and wrong depends on the relation of an action to the cultural moral code. In the condensed version, it is easier to see the argument’s major flaw: it is not a sound argument. While the argument is valid, premise number two seems to be intuitively false. While this does show that the cultural differences argument should not be a satisfactory defense of moral relativism, it fails to prove that the argument’s conclusion is in fact false. If the structure of this argument is applied to a real-world example, the priority of establishing that the conclusion is false becomes clear. Consider the real-life case of Michael Vick, a former NFL Quarter-Back that displayed immense talent and promise before he was arrested and indicted in July 2007 for the felony charge of dog fighting and abuse. Details from the investigation noted that Vick participated in actives such as the training and torture of the dogs, and the gruesome killing of failed fighting dogs. In an attempt to explain his crime, Vick noted that he was raised in a poverty-stricken area where there often was not enough money or food to take care of the people in his family, let alone a family dog. His environment caused him to see dogs as disposable sources of entertainment that simply were not treated as living creatures. If you were to apply the cultural differences argument to this scenario it would resemble the following: (1) The culture in which Michael Vick was raised believed that dog abuse
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 4 pages?
- Spring '14