In class we have been discussing cultural relativism, the view that the moral status of an act is determined entirely by the moral code of the society/culture in which it is done.
In this brief essay in the NY Times, philosopher Justin McBrayer (Fort Lewis College) argues against the oft-repeated, seemingly firmly entrenched distinction between fact and opinion and the corresponding claim that all value claims (and so all moral judgments) are opinions, and so not facts. He notes that this is a view that is widely taught in our K-12 curriculum.
In this brief essay
in the NY Times, philosopher Paul Boghossian (NYU) offers an argument
against moral relativism in general, and so against cultural relativism
in particular. He contends that those who try to be moral relativists
either (a) end up having to accept at least some moral absolutes, or (b)
they end up being moral nihilists, denying morality altogether. The
latter option is clearly unacceptable, so we ought to grant that there
are at least some moral absolutes.In addition, in this podcast, Boghossian is interviewed on the topic of moral relativism. He talks through the same sort of issues in this interview as he does in his NY Times op-ed.
Listen carefully to this brief interview and read the brief essays carefully. Take some notes while you listen and read. Jot down any questions that occur to you. Do you think McBrayer and Boghossian make a good case against moral relativism? If not, why not? Where does they go wrong? And what difference does this all make? Does it matter whether one is a moral relativist or not? What do you think?
Be sure to interact with each other. Consider what everyone has to say and strive to learn from each other. Challenge each other. Push each other to think more clearly. Through it all, of course, be gracious and charitable.
