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.
I feel McBrayer overly stresses the fact that beginning in our early education we are taught there is only fact and opinion. Very little is considered fact and all types of morals are then considered opinions. He also mentions the inconsistencies of the school as students are supposed to be able to recognize and abide by their rights and responsibilities which are only opinions not fact. However, the students follow are see these are "rules" which are facts. He lastly states that one of the hardships of being a human is realizing and differentiating between which moral claims are actually correct. I don't think he made a very intense argument against moral relativism because he didn't focus on the differences between cultures. Instead he focused on the importance of us being able to make our own decisions on opinions vs fact and which moral claims are correct. If he had pointed out the differences more I would accept it as a case against moral relativism but without differentiation I can't take it as a valid argument.
ReplyDeleteBohgossian actually argues against relativism and gives many points against why it is wrong. The point of absolute morals vs freedom from any absolute moral facts confuses me. I don't see the point of a would-be-relativist. He stresses the importance of vocabulary and is very logical it appears. People without religion to guide them for morals, creates a difficult job that makes relativism appear easy. I do agree that the right thing can often depend on the circumstance however, that would be against moral relativism.
in order to argue for something, you do not need to actually believe in it. Neither of them has to be a relativist in order to prevent these findings.
Mariah Vasquez
Mariah,
DeleteI disagree, I think McBrayer did an adequate job of discrediting moral relativism. A main claim of ,moral relativism is that it says there is no objective "truth" in morality, and that right and wrong are only matters of opinion. McBrayer addresses that children are being taught that fact is something that can be tested and proven, while opinions are anything that someone believes, thinks, or feels. Moral relativists believe that there is no truth in morals and that there is not one moral code superior to another. If this is true McBrayer says that students say that it's just opinion that it's wrong to kill another human being, or that it's wrong to cheat on a test. Don't you think this is problematic? McBrayer says that a fact doesn't have to be proven. This can be seen when some people thought the world was flat and others thought the world was round. This would be classified as an opinion by today's definition, but it's a fact that the world is round, even without proof. Moral claims are hard to prove, but doesn't it seem logical that it's wrong to kill another person without reason? We hope all humans have accepted the value of human life and can live on the earth peacefully. If someone was wrongfully killing others (genocide) wouldn't you want to follow the moral fact of it's wrong to kill others, or would you just say that's just their opinion? Moral Relativism allows people to say that there is no true moral facts and therefore anything that is an opinion can be morally correct. This is not a theory our youth should be accepting.
I agree with you about Bohgossian's comments on how people without a religion to guide them often follow the moral beliefs of their society. It seems like they would also have their own personal beliefs as well too. Actions depend on circumstance as well too, which a moral relativists would say only do what the moral code of the society says. This would be bad if a circumstance involved having to have your family killed off if you didn't eat meat, and your society says it's wrong to eat meat. Which would you do? A moral relativists would say you should not eat the beef. Again troublesome for this theory on morality.
Ryan W. (2:00)
I completely agree with you Ryan that I feel McBrayer did an amazing job. He pointed out the main problem with how our society teaches the difference between fact and opinion. I mean at a young age children are like sponges they absorb a lot of what they learn and often much of that will stay with them throughout their adult years. So but having students learn such ruff descriptions of fact and opinions, it kind of makes you wonder if you should question what you already have been taught in regards to that? I love when people use the example of when people "knew" that the world was flat and you should use caution as to not sail off the edge of the world. Back in the day that was regarded as fact. Now a days that old "fact" has been disregarded as nothing more than opinion and now the new "fact" is that the world is round. It really drives home the point that facts truly are not proven all the time. It raises the question do they truly have to be proven? The thing with cultural relativism not having objective truth in morality deffinately leaves society I a big problem. Then who sets the rules, what is the authority, and what society should we be looking towards as "morally right and wrong"? I thought Bohgossian had an interesting argument that claimed that a lot depended upon the circumstances surrounding the action to tell if it was moral right or wrong. I found this argument rather ideal in that I feel many people would agree that right and wrong depended on the circumstances during that time, however, I found it strange because I remember in class how we learned that according to cultural relativism if the society says it's right then no other consideration is needed. So this argument actual stumped me and I'm not sure what to make of it. So if anyone has clarification on this part I would greatly appreciate it.
DeleteAs for the podcast I found it rather interesting, however I personally would have to reject cultural relativism because I don't think you should blindly follow what society says and base what you do as right and wrong. Because as we have learned from the past society can be wrong (world being flat). I think the circumstances that allow absolutionists to function is very similar to how many people go about their moral convictions now a day. Many people will often change their moral beliefs based on the circumstances. Great example is abortion. Some would say that abortion is deffinately wrong;however, many would say we'll what if she was sexual abused or assaulted. Some would say abortion under those circumstances would be permissible and right to perform such an act. Personally I believe a healthy mix of Devine beliefs we learned about in class mixed with my own moral values and worth that I've developed over my 20 years on this Earth. I personally don't think cultural relativism can survive with such a perspective on societies that doesn't allow for improves or judgements. It hard to never change beliefs or morals ever without saying one is better than the other. I personally believe nothing is perfect and everything and everyone can be improved on. I am not a cultural relativist.
-Erika M. (2:00)
Justin McBrayer makes several good points in his analysis of why young adults today do not seem to value or appreciate moral values within society. He sees that the root of the problem is in the curriculum that is being taught to very young kids in elementary school. Kids, such as his son, are being taught that in order for something to be true it must be able to be proven, and all else that is not proven must be opinion. In some manner, I do see how this could be a very beginners' way of teaching fact and opinion to young kids who may not be able to comprehend the true definition of what the two ideas may really entail. The curriculum being taught suggests that there are no moral truths in society because no absolute proof has been presented, and everyone seems to have their own moral codes, which by definition makes moral truths only opinions. However, I believe there certainly are universal moral codes among everyone that have not yet been proven or never can be proven. Just because something has not yet been proven does not make that thing unreal or merely an opinion. We just haven't found a way to prove it yet, but we believe it regardless. If kids become more aware of what fact and opinion really mean, they will, in the future, be more open to accepting their own moral code and understanding of others and the reasoning behind it.
ReplyDeletePaul Boghossian explains moral relativism well in his piece. It is simply a way of thinking and believing moral values that lies somewhere between absolutism and nihilism. In the world, every culture or society holds its own beliefs of what the right way and wrong way to live are. However, cultural relativism says that there are no absolute answers for all of society. We cannot judge what's right or wrong, but only what is right or wrong within a particular moral code of a society. Even then, judging your own moral code would mean you have a different moral code and therefore should not judge other moral codes. Boghossian also explains that moral relativists believe in the moral code of a society only. Absolutists, on the other hand, considers the circumstances and situation before reaching an absolute moral verdict. I do not think that moral relativism should be followed completely for every occasion. Certain occasions call for certain action to be taken, it doesn't matter if the act being performed is morally right or wrong in the society. It only matters that only more certain and globally accepted moral values are maintained. This leads me to reject cultural relativism since an objective moral code does seem to influence people people’s behavior.
James Donner (M,W,F 2:00)
In the article, “Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts,” written by Justin McBrayer, the differences between fact and opinion are brought up frequently. He learned that many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts. In fact college freshmen view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture (cultural relativism). As he learned in his son’s second grade classroom, they are being taught that a fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested and proven. And an opinion is something that someone thinks, feels, or believes. McBrayer believes that the definition of a facts goes in between truth and fact. He goes on to say that things can be true even if no one prove them. An example is, life being elsewhere in the universe, but no one can prove it. Also some things that have been “proved” to be true, turned out to be false. I completely agree when McBrayer says “if proof is required for facts, they become person-relative.” This meaning that something might be a fact if I can prove it, but not a fact if you can’t prove it. Children are being taught the fact and opinion is an either or, they are never given the choice that something is both. When obviously many things can be considered to be both. For example, if I said I believe 2+2=4. With the definition of an opinion, that would be considered an opinion, but 2+2 is actually equal to 4, making it a fact. School is teaching that there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths. If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity? There is no way of proving what criminals are doing is wrong, it’s all a matter of opinion. This curriculum is setting children up to doublethink things. It is making it difficult to say that something is wrong, when technically they were just told that it is all a matter of opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “The Maze of Moral Relativism,” written by Paul Boghossian, moral relativism and cultural relativism were often compared to each other. Boghossian begins with stating that relativism is not always a coherent way of responding to the rejection of a certain class of facts. If relativism isn’t a good way of responding, then how exactly should you respond? Einstein showed that while the world does not contain simultaneity as such, it does not contain its relativistic cousin. Although Boghossian brings up the Salem witches, once we give up on the idea of witches there is no relativistic cousin. How does this work? Is moral case more like that of simultaneity or the Salem witches? Another very important question to be asked, when absolute moral facts is rejected, does it become moral relativism or moral eliminativism (nihilism)? The answer depends on the relativistic cousins of “right” and “wrong” that can play the same role that absolute “right” and “wrong” play. Moral relativism doesn’t really explain the differences between right and wrong. Boghossian goes on to say that right and wrong are normative terms, which are used to say how things ought to be in contrast to of what they really are. Most moral relativists say that the moral right and wrong are to be relativized to a community’s “moral code.” This sounds very similar to cultural relativism, where an act is allowed as long as it is permitted within the society in which the act is occurring. Boghassion’s final words were “a would-be relativist about morality needs to decide whether his view grants the existence of some absolute moral facts, or whether it is to be a pure relativism, free of any commitment to absolutes.
Morgan H. (2:00)
I think that all arguments presented were good. I believe that McBrayer's explanation of fact was well written. He stated that "fact waffles between truth and proof." I think that he is correct because truth is based on what others say, but we have to prove to ourselves that something is actually good for our own sake. A person cannot just believe something/someone, unless it is proved to them. I do agree and disagree that education is influencing everything we learn about fact and opinion. I was taught that science was opinion until high school, but this was only because of what we were learning. Now, I know that science is based on facts, but I don't remember learning that fact was something that could only be tested or proven, while opinion was just the thoughts or beliefs of someone. Opinions were more than just a belief, they were something that hadn't been proved as far as that date.
ReplyDeleteBoghossian brought up a good point when saying that there and no relative cousins of right and wrong, meaning that relativism couldn't be true. If there is no segway into a section of right and wrong, then how can we just believe one thing? We can't, making everyone have the same views would cause even more frantic lives of individuals because we would fight over our personal beliefs and not focus on the bigger moral beliefs of the entire society.
In the podcast, I believe that he made many great points, but knowing that diversity has a difference in which way it can go and that cultural relativism can't exist if there are norms accepted in a society. I believe a society is based on norms and beliefs created through generations, but cultural relativism doesn't allow change, progress, or even that there are more than one way to do things. I disagree with cultural relativism because everyone has their own way of doing things now-a-days. I could study with the TV on and my roommate could only study with music on. It is hard to think of this situation as a part of this discussion, but this is our norm, and each differs just like cultural beliefs differ even within just one society.
Catherine Kramp (2:00)
I agree with McBrayer, he presented good arguments in his essay. He discussed how at a young age, we are taught to distinguish fact and opinion from each other. Then he goes on to ask simple fact or opinion statements like "All men are created equal" and "copying homework assignments are wrong" and came to the conclusion any claim with good, right, wrong, etc. is not a fact. He states and i am 100% on his side when he says "There are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths." Because if there was all of the questions would have answers based on facts not opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bohgossians’s argument against relativism and his statements about people with no religion. Because I feel they would have their own moral values because they are going against all the religions which say this is right or that is right. I also agree that right and wrong depends on the circumstances. For example, if another person is putting your life in danger is it okay to defend yourself. Its wrong to do wrong to other people are doing something to you can retaliate and claim self defense. Does that make it okay to hurt someone because you’re in danger?
Paul Boghossians podcast argument depends on the claim that moral judgements are something over and above describing factual matters. He thinks that they essentially involve an "endorsement" component in addition. But there is a well known difficulty for someone who thinks that moral facts are just absolute, mind independent facts, in saying how moral judgements can indeed be more than describing. But If moral facts exist in a separate moral reality, how can moral judgements be anything more than attempts to describe factual reality? I believe it depends on what side you are on.
Demondre B. (2:00)
I agree with many other student, I believe that many of the claims that McBrayer made were reasonable. I think the statement he made that had the most effect on me was the claim that stated " the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof". What the teachers were teaching in the school wasn't necessarily correct. I think that the teachers were putting to much emphasis on what is truly right and wrong and they weren't considering that the two can compliment each other. Things can be true even though we can't prove them. Also, throughout history, it has been discovered that beliefs we once thought were true turned out to be incorrect (the earth being flat). I think Morgan put it best when she said that the school system teaches that there are no moral facts and in return there are no moral truths. therefore, all we are left with is opinion. Who is to say that something is right or wrong? One person could have an opinion that lighting somebody's house on fire is justifiable, and who is to tell that person that they are wrong. If somebody were to tell that person that they are wrong, they would just be putting their opinion against the other person's opinion.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Boghossian makes some good claims in both the article "The Maze of Moral Relativism" and his podcast. The one claim that he stated that I strongly agree with deals with individuals religion. If individuals have no religion, in most cases they turn to the moral beliefs of their society to guide them. Religion plays a major role in the influencing of peoples decision making. If an individual doesn't have a religion to look for to help guide them, then they are bound to follow the "norms" of their society. A lot of other students are also bringing up the idea of what to do in times of distress. If you have to kill in order to save your family, what are you going to do. A moral relativist would tell you that you can't kill, but when do u kick moral relativism to the curb? Obviously if you have to kill in order to save your family, you are going to (I would hope so). Moral relativism has its ups and downs, but I believe the biggest rejection to it is that it is to concrete. I like the absolutist belief that deals with circumstances. I believe that the world we live in today is so complex and there really is no place for moral relativism. With the speed of how fast things change, moral relativism has a hard time keeping up, and people have a hard time distinguishing between what is "right" and "wrong".
Salvatore S. (2:00)
How McBrayer discusses opinion v. fact is a way that I have never thought of before. I have not yet realized that when we were in school it’s true that we had to determine if something was a fact or opinion and that there was no option for both. When looking at the beliefs McBrayer is also correct. A fact is something that can be proven so how can we prove that cheating is bad? There’s no formula we can use like in science or no experiment we can run. It’s all a matter of opinion. Therefore from the very beginning of our school education cultural relativism is promoted; there is indeed no moral truth. It seems to me as though we need to reexamine our definition of truth.
ReplyDeleteIn Boghossian’s article he references the idea of right and wrong and how every society has its own belief of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore he suggests that culture relativism is false. There is no possible way cultural relativism can be right because what Boghossian says is very true. When a moral code of a society is created it is because there are certain actions that the society believes is right and some actions that the society believes is wrong. Therefore it is impossible for there to be no right and no wrong because within our societies we are always making these determinations.
In the Podcast Boghossian states that moral relativism definitely all depends on the culture and that there is not a culture that has wrong morals because it all depends on the cultures rituals and practices. Even if someone is not in the certain society which an act is performed they could still accept that the certain act being done is acceptable. For example some believe that we should not eat beef and even though our own society is fine with eating beef we still accept their value of not eating beef and don’t judge them for not eating it.
Ashley L. (1:00)
In Justin McBrayer's brief article it states that children may not know correct moral acts. Like he states, "What would you say if you found out our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it is wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests?" And the obvious answer is we would not like it.
ReplyDeleteI believe wether or not our society tells us its morally correct or not, we as people still have a conscious belief wether things are right and wrong. We would feel guilt if we did things we knew were morally incorrect but we did them anyways. Another thing I found interesting was when he states that things can be true even if we don't have proof; and that goes into philosophy. Philosophy is finding that truth, trying to find that truth even if deep down you never actually find it.
As a product of today's common core education, I can definitely understand what McBrayer has to say on fact and opinion. I can remember countless times being told that facts are something that can be proven. McBrayers argument is very thought provoking about the implications that it has on future generations that have a skewed sense of what could potentially be fact or opinion. Leading to it being purely a matter of opinion whether cheating is wrong. Which leads me to my next point, on whether it really is true that you can say that cheating is a fact or an opinion.
ReplyDeleteI will constantly be perplexed with the idea of moral absolutism versus moral relativity. Yes, there is no written set of moral code. Which leaves it all up in arms whether there really is such thing as moral absolutes. When you think about it however, across the world, morality is very similar. With the idea of cows in India, to be the overused example. It has nothing to do with eating cows, and everything to do with honoring our ancestors. Yet, there is nothing really stating that cheating, or killing is wrong. My personal morals say that they are, but does that necessarily mean that it has to be really regarded as true to everyone?
I really like how Boghossian brought in "etiquette relativism" to the discussion. Saying that we follow etiquette rules so as not to offend people of different cultures. It really stirs the pot when you think about relativism as a whole.
I do agree with etiquette relativism. That seems simple enough. Where I stand on moral relativism, or if moral absolutes exist at all, is still to be determined.
Tom R. (2:00)
After reading McBrayer's article I defiantly had a little change of mind. I always have been taught that facts are fact and they are proven. Facts have other information to back a statement up. But his idea about how are some "facts" proven interested me. So, how can we say cheating is bad? What facts back that up? Also he says that some facts are nearly opinions and at first I didn't agree with that but now I see his point.
ReplyDeleteIn Boghossian’s article is sounds like he is saying there is no such thing as Cultural Relativism. He states different society have different moral codes. Basically, there are different things different societies believe in that are correct or incorrect. If this is true then how do we know what to look up to or guide us of what is wrong or right. We have nothing to compare our society with to know if it is right or wrong. People are going to have all different ideas about why their society is the best, but that is why they belong to a specific society.
It just goes to show that people are in different societies for a reason. People may be part of more than one society in the fact that they also agree with parts of other societies. I find it interesting to know people don't always agree with every single thing their society believes. But I just wonder if people who belong to more than one society ever let other know about the different societies they belong to.
-- Danielle Tester
MWF 1:00
After reading what these two authors had to say, it really put it into perspective about a different way to look at situations and what people think is correct or incorrect as well as to know that its not so easy to figure it out sometimes. In McBrater’s article I was shocked to find out that I was too a victim of learning the wrong way to perceive facts versus opinion. And I do recall the countless exercise’s that take place in school to drive it in your head, as to what to put on your test the following week. We almost become robots of the school system and don’t take a step back and take a look at the matter for ourselves. Now clearly in second grade I wasn’t critically thinking about how learning this will affect my future. But maybe instead of drilling us the school system should let us think for our own and decide, because that will further help us in our learning rather than memorizing and not actually soaking in the information. I can tell you for a lot of my classes that even know I already took them and ‘retained’ the information already I most likely already forgot it and would fail the tests because I memorized it the week coming up to the test. Anyways, enough about how schools are contradicting and now on to the comment about how people (especially college freshman) think that morals are just opinions. I think he hit the nail on the head with this one because, honestly being a 21 year old girl in college I wonder if there are any morals left in the world sometimes, after some of the stuff you see or that goes on. More people should start caring about morals and what the expect out of themselves, and not set the standard so low.
ReplyDeleteThe article by Boghossian used the word normative which is a hard one for me to wrap my head around because I feel there should be no ‘ought’ or obligation to have something be ‘normal’. And he correlated the words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with the word normal and how it would be in a particular moral code in a society (he didn’t use the word society I just did because I feel if there is a moral code it most likely belongs to a society where the population would be gathered). Back to the word normal, I just feel that there is no such thing as normal and everything should have unique standards because in my opinion why would you want to be normal? We should want to motivate people to be extravagate. I also like that he mentioned that sometimes it takes a while to have a correct answer to a moral question, and that’s ok. That made me feel good because sometimes I am presented with a questions and I honestly do no know what the answer would be. And we are only human so we may take the wrong answer then change our mind. Both were really good reads.
Emily Gill
I both agree and disagree with McBrayer and his thoughts on fact and opinion. I do agree that the way students are being taught fact and opinion isn’t necessarily right and that there are cases where things can be both a fact and an opinion, but there are many cases where I believe important topics can be simply a matter of opinion. For example, there is obviously some fact to religion. Some sort of god(s) either exists or does not. However, it would be impossible for everyone’s religious beliefs to be facts. If one religion is undoubtedly a fact and is correct, then everyone else’s religion or lack thereof would be wrong and their beliefs could not be factual (according to the teachings of many religions). So, in the case of religion, I believe that people’s views are indeed opinion. Because fact, opinion, and truth can be complicated subjects, I can think of no better way to teach children at such a young age. I agree that it isn’t right to teach them that moral beliefs are matters of opinion, so maybe instead we should exclude such important topics until they are more ready to handle them.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with what Mr. Boghossian says about cultural relativism. Although I myself am not a cultural relativist I do not think that a cultural relativist is essentially a nihilist. The way Boghossian goes about arguing that cultural relativists are nihilists is very off base in my opinion. From my understanding, when he compares cultural relativism to witchcraft, he is saying that cultural relativism is claiming there to be no right and wrong, which is incorrect. Cultural relativism teaches that right and wrong are relative to a society, not that there is no such thing as right or wrong. Just because there is no absolute, universal truth to morality, does not mean that morality does not exist and is not what cultural relativism teaches. Mr. Boghossian’s entire first argument is based on the fact that cultural relativism claims there to be no such thing as morality, which is simply not true. I may be misinterpreting what was being said, and if so feel free to correct me, but from my understanding, a lot of his arguments assume something that is not true.
-Cody F. (2:00)
In his article, McBrayer makes some good points against cultural relativism, even though I do agree with Mariah about him stressing that in early education that student only taught fact and opinion. I agree with him that not having a distinction between morality and opinions could make students more likely to believe that morality has no objective truth. I also feel like he does a good job of supporting his ideas about what they are teaching in school by using his son’s second grade class as an example. He also talks about while the school tells them that morality statements are just matters of opinion, they use the same kind of statements for the rules they make in schools. I feel like he is right in saying that this could cause problems and get confusing for kids. I do not agree that these teachings are the only reason, however, that students cheat. I feel like a lot of students are more likely to cheat if they are under pressure to pass, which is even more enphensived in colleges, because now they are paying for their education. All in all I think that McBrayer gives a good argument with good supporting examples.
ReplyDeleteI think Boghossian makes some good points about how cultural relativism works and where it goes wrong. He does this by giving examples such as how we do not believe in witches anymore and an example of a simultaneity case. He does this to set the stage for asking if cultural relativism is the right answer or if moral eliminativism (nihilism) is. He tells us that if he deny moral absolution, we cannot go to cultural relativism, but are actually going to be in the realm of nihilism. This makes sense to be, because cultural relativism tries to say that there is no objective truth, but at the same time they that your society is the supreme authority to your morality. They seem to me like they are trying to ride the fence, but it is not working for them. Boghossian then goes on to suggest that cultural relativist either needs to admit that their are some absolute truths in morality, otherwise they are just practicing nihilism. I do not think though if cultural relativist say that their are some moral truths that they still believe what they believe now. I think that cultural relativism is the middle fence between absolute truth in morality or nihilism and that they need to pick a side. I feel like Boghossian does an overall good job of making some good points about the truth of cultural relativism and gives many good examples for what he is talking about.
I do not think that it would matter if the authors are cultural relativist or not. An argument does not depend upon the arguer, instead it depends on the strength of itself. So it does not matter who makes the argument, what matters is the content of the argument. I think though that the arguments they do make point out significant issues in our school teachings, and in the ideas of cultural relativism itself. I think these ideas that pose should push us see see that a change needs to be made in these areas, and for us to start looking for the best way to make these changes.
Hannah K. (1.00)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with Danielle’s earlier comment in saying that the first essay by Justin McBrayer, didn’t really change my mind at all, or reveal immediate information that I didn’t already understand. Since an early age, as his own second grader can attest, people have learned the different definitions that distinguish “fact” from “opinion”. We were taught to sort out right from wrong only based on the concept that some statements are opinions and others can be proven facts, but cannot be both. He is saying that if moral facts do not exist, there is no truth in morality in any society. In a way, all students learned that any statement that questions “value” in any way (and thus considered a statement of morality) is classified as an opinion. So morality is only dependent on a society’s opinion? I think in a way, McBrayer didn’t fully make a good case against moral relativism. This idea is based on what is deemed permissible by the moral code of society—and thus is an opinion of that particular society. Is it a fact that we shouldn’t kill other human beings? Not necessarily. Yet he claims that some value claims like this one can be true with evidence. While I think he is trying to reject the idea of moral relativism, he doesn’t quite provide all the evidence on the matter to convince me.
ReplyDeleteHowever, from Paul Boghossian’s essay and podcast, it is clear to see that he rejects the idea of moral relativism, to the point where he is saying that it doesn’t really exist. Moral relativism is a half way point between moral absolutes and the idea of nihilism. Where do morals come from? Are there absolutes in morality? Boghossian was trying to prove that there needs to be moral absolutes in society. Without absolute moral facts, the idea of right vs. wrong is only a failed concept. Using several examples, he uses a moral belief in saying “slavery was right”. At the time, this was just a fact about moral code during that time frame. Another example he gives is over table manners and etiquette used in different societies. The “norm” of each is different, yet it is absolute. Because it is unacceptable to deny morality altogether, I agree with Boghossian in saying that there needs to be some moral absolutes—rejecting the idea of moral relativism, or cultural relativism.
In my opinion, I do think it matters whether someone is a moral relativist or not. It makes a difference when philosophers such as McBrayer and Boghossian fight for their side, and if someone agrees with moral relativism they are in truth, rejecting some key ideas on the basis of morality.
Sara B. (1:00)
In Justin McBrayer's article I found it very helpful when talking about facts needing to have proof that he brought up the example that one person may believe something to be a fact because they can prove it while it may not be a fact for someone else because they can't prove it. I also appreciated that he brought up E=MC^2 because almost everyone has heard of this equation and know it to be a fact even though not everyone can prove it or even understand it. We know it would be ridiculous if someone said this equation was not a fact simply because they could not prove it to be correct. There are several errors they could have made along the process of solving the equation in order for them to get it wrong but they still believe the equation is correct because physicists have proven it right countless times before us. Therefore, connecting fact with proof is an incorrect way of going about teaching fact and truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Boghossian's idea that right and wrong depends on the circumstance in which you are in. For example, he proposed that you should not slurp while you are at dinner at the Buckingham Palace because the hosts would think it was offensive whereas it would be appropriate to slurp if you were dining in Xian, China because it is a sign of approval of a meal and the hosts would be offended if you didn't slurp. This shows that a single act may not be right or wrong in general it just depends what context it is in. This is similar to the idea of wearing hats; it is neither right nor wrong to wear one in general but when you put it in different situations it can become right or wrong. It can become right when you are outside for long periods of time and need to shield your face from the sun, but it can be wrong if you are in church and it is considered rude to wear a hat. I feel he presented a great outlook on right and wrong and proves that although there may be outright right and wrongs dealing with somethings, other situations simply depend on the circumstance.
Amanda W. (1:00)
Justin McBrayer poses a question about moral facts that in many ways both surprise yet don’t surprise me. There are no such thing as moral facts, thus no such thing as moral truth. In class, we talked about cultural relativism on the basis that a society is the higher authority of morality and thus an action is right if and only if it is permitted within that particular society. We then took a substantial amount of time showing that there is such a thing as ‘objective truth’ by looking at Divine Command Theory, Consequentialism, and Kantianism. What we came up with was ‘Do what society says.’ This is an objective truth and we are to reject cultural relativism. This fact only came to light when we were presented this argument in college after we, as students, had a fundamental understanding of what our morality is. It is surprising to hear that a child’s philosophy is affected at an early age. By making the children distinguish between fact and opinion it is teaching them to only look at factual philosophical components and disregard anything that cannot be measured. McBrayer points out that many humanistic ideology is opinion, at least by the common core standards. I believe that this is a very important subject to talk about with children. Even though the children are taught that belief and feelings are opinion, they also need to know that treating people with dignity and worth is a fundamental characteristic that we need to share to treat each other in a manner that is respectful. Thus in this case, opinion becomes fact.
ReplyDeletePaul Boghossian takes a stance that relativism is common among people, especially when interacting with other cultures. He encourages us to determine if there is a moral fact in morality or do we change ourselves to conform to the cultural morality as it stands. An example mentioned was the idea of slurping in different cultures. In England, it is considered rude while in China it is a compliment. He then goes on to talk about the abuse of children and how we would look at this depending on the culture. In my opinion, there has to be fundamental moral truths in morality and people need to stand up to maintain these truths. If there was no such thing as a moral truth, then cultures would have no notion of decency for people and for their culture. I understand that in some situations it may be right to conform to the traditions and principles of a cultures to avoid offence, but at the same time a human must understand and stick to the moral ethics that are fundamentally right.
Tyler C. (2:00)
Justin McBrayer addresses why he believes young adults lack moral values due to exposure, or lack thereof, during early education. From a very young age we are taught that there are facts, which can be proven, and that all else is opinion. In regards to moral truths, this ultimately leads to there being no moral truths, only moral opinions – which makes it increasingly hard for these kids to construct their own moral views. When you are taught that fact and opinion cannot go hand in hand, then morals are screwed. In school, were taught that value go hand in hand with morals which go hand in hand with opinions – but to assume all morals are opinions is a setback. If there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths – but this is obscene. If there were no moral truths then what is our justice system built off of? Opinions? Which we all know to be untrue, it’s based on the moral code of that society. Teaching this way in early education simply sets students up for failure in assuming that there is no truth behind morality.
ReplyDeletePaul Boghossian discusses cultural relativism and moral elimination, or nihilism. If one denies moral absolution, then they are not a relativist but a nihilist. Cultural relativism says there is no moral truth, but there is a moral truth within each society, which is known and accepted as the moral code. But if they truly feel that there is no moral truth, then they are actually practicing nihilism. Cultural relativism is the fence between absolutism and nihilism, so ultimately Boghossian is saying that they need to pick a side on whether there are truths in morals or not – to be done with the neutral middle ground.
These are both two interesting and compelling views to entertain.
J Burke (1PM)
I thought that McBrayer made various good points on the analysis of young adults not valuing/appreciating moral values within our society today. In his way it the problem is what young kids are being taught in the current curriculum, such as his son. It is suggesting that there are no moral truths. I don’t quite agree with that considering that you can believe something without having any proof to back it up. If we change the way we teach fact and opinion in younger school children I think that they will be more likely to be accepting of moral codes and have a better understanding of others and their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how Bohgossian's comments on how people without a religion to guide them often follow the moral beliefs of their society. I feel that actions depend on circumstances. This considers their personal beliefs as well.
Katherine S (1PM)
I'm not sure that McBrayer was trying to say that there were no moral codes, in fact, I think he was trying to say just the opposite. I believe that he is arguing to change the fact-opinion epidemic among children to stop them from growing into relativistic individuals that think that laws and responsibilities are just opinions.
DeleteMeagan Rhine (1:00)
Beginning with McBrayer's piece, I must admit that I fall into category of students that have held the fact and opinion definitions as sacred tools to isolating claims. I found in class I was having trouble trying to relay my thoughts in certain discussions because as soon as the words "wrong" and "right" were put on the table, it was only an opinion and wasn't necessarily validated like some of the other statements. I also absolutely agree with his statement on cultural relativism and its connection with the fact-opinion training as children. Beginning this lesson I was on CR's side, but the more we discussed and the more I read into the BAPs, I have completely switched sides. While this is a very valid argument to bring forward, I believe changing the Common Core to be nearly impossible. The closest solution I can fathom making any kind of dent is incorporating philosophy into certain lessons. Even then, the children might be more confused than anything.
ReplyDeleteI'm ashamed to say that Boghossian's article was high over my head for about the first half of my reading. I was not understanding the references and the connections between them until his analogy with the soup. The idea that there are overlying absolute moral facts lines up with Rachels' claims as well. "We ought not offend our hosts," whether that means it is necessary to slurp or to not slurp the soup will depend on where we are. Once coming to this conclusion, Boghossian continues to ask now, which claims are absolute moral claims, and which are not? While it isn't possible to discuss which are absolute and make a list, it is important to keep in mind when considering solutions in difficult situations.
Boghossian defines relativists as people who stand neither on moral absolutism or moral nihilism, but somewhere in the middle, no longer using normative vocabulary, such as "right" and "wrong." An example they give is the elimination of the existence of a god and the disregarding of the moral system. Where does one get their morals, if not from a deity? The interviewer brought up the Hindu's prohibition of beef consumption, to which he argued that the religious practices such as this were not necessarily included in the relativistic standpoint, because doing what the society/fellow believers do is what they believe is what their deity wishes they do. What they seem to conclude is that actions are circumstantial, relative to location and to society, but not in a relativistic way that concludes nothing is normative.
Meagan Rhine (1:00)
I do believe both parties made a good case against moral relativism. Beginning with the McBrayer piecce, he was baffled when he went to his son's open house. He thoroughly explained why he disagreed, and his argument made sense. I believe one of his biggest points to be that children are told what to do while being made to believe that there are no moral truths. If there are no moral truths, then why are the children punished for not doing as they ought to? I think this idea is an important one. He makes a good case when speaking about fact or opinion. Opinions can be backed by factual information just as easily as facts have the ability to be believed or to not be believed. Moving on to the Boghossian pieces, I also believe he made a a good case against moral relativism. In one part of the audio, he argued that cultural history as well as religious beliefs do not determine a moral code, as all people of a society will not have the same cultural upbringing and religious viewpoints, but will have the same moral societal code. Etiquette was also raised to questioning. We follow another culture's etiquette, or we don't, do to respect or lack thereof, not because our moral code in our society tells us to. There is a line however fine. In the essay, I took the biggest point to be that right and wrong are normative terms (terms that are used to explain ought to aspects rather than actuality aspects), and right and wrong are what moral codes rely heavily upon. A societal code being based off of what ought to be happening is not going to help society as a whole in regards to what is actually happening. I do believe it makes a difference that one is a moral relativist and one is not. While one has studied all aspects of this argument and is expected to stay in place in regards to opinion on the matter, the other is able to express his opinions freely.
ReplyDeleteDestiny S (2:00)
In Mcbrayer article I found it to be very interesting his thoughts on K-12 educational means to put in the minds of young human beings that moral facts are not meant to be believed in. I have to agree with his points on how this thought it forced into the minds of young people. Being an education major, it is our job in some aspects to the curriculum that is presented to us. We are not teaching them the things that are necessary but yet the things that will allow to pass the next level of testing to prove too adequate in the classroom. Everything being presented to students in schooling before college are based on opinion, and that there is fact vs. opinion. The student handbook and rules are based on opinion of someone that thinks those rules are the way the students should act. Therefore I have to agree with Mcbrayer that these students are being taught that there are no moral facts, resulting in no moral truths. The question of, is this the right way to do it, is a matter to be further evaluated.
ReplyDeleteBoghossian discusses his thoughts on religion and no religion, and how these beliefs alter ones thoughts on relativism and the morals of which the decide to go with. There are no true facts to right or wrong, if there were than relativism would seem likely to all. But with that comes circumstance, and the everyday problems and situation people are presented with. The idea of right and wrong comes with what circumstance the answer comes in to play with. It is too hard to determine what is right or wrong because it comes down to the circumstances that life presents you with, and with moral relativism, one does not have the option. With the way today’s world is, there is no place for moral relativism, because things simply come down to chance or circumstance.
Dylan B. (1:00pm)
Boghossian’s take on cultural relativism is very similar to an argument reviewed in class. While one act may be morally correct in one culture, it may be an insult in another. Instead of determining what is right and what is wrong, he says to look to see what is right or wrong to that relative society. He addresses this with the example of etiquette. While it may seem like an absolute truth that so many protest do not exist to be respectful of your hosts regardless of the culture it resides in, Boghossian argues that accepting that would also be accepting common sense as an absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteMcBrayer has a different perspective. He begins by questioning the logic of teaching that there is no definitive right and wrong, putting it in the eyes of children. He goes on to question fact versus opinion. Besides the definitions being untrue, children are taught that something can only be one or the other while some claims can be both or neither. It is taught that nothing is true yet teach how to behave. This relates to the grown up word of cultural relativism. He makes the case that it doesn’t make logical sense to tell societies that no moral truth exists yet have a moral code.
Meghan K. (2:00 pm)
McBrayer's article really put into perspective for me just how misled people are, myself included, about the reality of facts and opinions. I think it is scary that kids are taught at such an early age that fact is truth and opinion is simply belief. This makes me consider what it might mean for the future when the younger generations have grown up. What would the world look like if everyone were to believe that all moral claims were mere opinion, that it's not really "true" that killing, lying, stealing, etc. is wrong. For this reason, I think that it is extremely important to ponder the truth about morality and think for ourselves about what is truth and what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteBoghossian made some intriguing arguments against moral relativism and its correlation to moral eliminitivism. Though parts of his article left my head spinning a bit, I felt that I recognized a lot of his points on moral relativism from the cultural relativists claims and beliefs. I liked his example of etiquette as a shared value between nations showing that what is "right" may at times be dependent on the circumstances. On another note, I agree with him in that we ought not to be satisfied with simply believing our own opinions about what we agree with/don't agree with, like/dislike, etc. and stopping there, but that we should consider whether some alternative exists. It is always good to explore the reasons for why we believe what we do.
Brianna E. (2:00)
I believe McBrayer makes an adequate argument against moral relativism. I thought he really made his case when he alluded to the lack of definitional clarity among what students believe or are taught to believe to be "fact" and "opinion." I agree with McBrayer on the view that the educational system today does not teach moral facts in the way that moral facts should be understood. He makes it very clear that the education system lacks consistency in the common core principles that are expected to be taught. McBrayer's argument against consistency seemingly makes his case against moral relativism.
ReplyDeleteAs for Boghossian, he goes into a lot of religious aspects that relate to moral relativism. I became lost within the context of his article, in all honestly. I did pick up on the fact that Boghossian makes reference to the moral code of one society, much like we referenced in class. He makes these references to argue that relativists believe right and wrong should only be spoken of in within the confines of a particular moral code in mind.
Boghossian also states that there is no such thing as moral relativism. He claims that if moral relativism were actually in existence then we would have to clump right and wrong with the idea of witches. He believes that there are no true facts to right and wrong, if there were then relativism would seem likely to all. He makes the case that relativism just is not, at all, likely to all when he alludes to how when we found out the truth about witches, we just merely stopped talking about them. Therefore, I believe Boghossian makes his case against moral relativism!
Sierra L (2:00)
I must say that I both agree and disagree with McBrayer’s opinion on our public education. On one hand, I went to elementary school, and was taught the difference between fact and opinion using definitions that were similar to the ones that his son learned. And yet I do not believe that killing people for fun or cheating on tests is morally right. McBrayer is focusing too much on how public education is shaping morals, and is overlooking the fact that culture and family are key in shaping a child’s moral convictions. On the other hand, I can see where McBrayer is coming from, and agree that our educational system does not allow children to place things that they believe are right in both the categories of truth and opinion.
ReplyDeleteMoving on to Bohgossian. In his article, he discusses that when a society creates their moral code, they create it on what they believe is right and wrong. They do not follow a predisposed moral code. This means that there really is no clear right and wrong, because societies are using their own judgment, therefore cultural relativism cannot be true. He also discusses the differences between cultural relativism and nihilism. He states that moral relativism is right on the fence between moral absolution and nihilism. He believes that morals are relative to the culture that people live in when they do not have a God or deity to turn to for a moral code. He also states that what you have to do also depends on the circumstances, and not just a moral code, for example the story that he uses of the broken down car. You would certainly stop if the person was in dire need of help, but you may not stop if you had somewhere to be or if you had your own emergency. He states that arguments like abusing children for fun are used in support of relativism, because most people are very strongly against this. Using this argument, it is clear that there is no one single moral code that everyone follows, and that many situations are purely circumstantial, and therefore cultural relativism is false.
Alexis L. (1:00)
I agree with McBrayer on the point that children are taught from a young age to become unable to discern moral truth from opinion. I remember being told to follow the golden rule and reading it over and over again, then later that fact had to have proof. A lot of what we are taught is that there is a big difference between truth and opinion, but there does seem to be an overlap. If I believe a fact, does it become opinion? He even asked his child this and put the child into a position of confusion. I understand the original thought by the teaching system but it discerning the difference does get harder when you look at how the truth is described.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Boghassian about the way moral relativism goes in circles. I don’t understand how we are supposed to be able decide what is right and wrong if there is no such thing, but people want to find it. There are so many cultures with different ideas, and we can’t judge them if we are not a part of them. Within each culture there are rights and wrongs that could go against another, so there will be conflicts. I think that the culture that is stronger will have better chances of winning the dispute, and that they could in turn push their morals onto others. There is no way to really find an answer to find out which morals are right and wrong and to me it seems like there will never really be an answer to the question.
Cultural morals seem to be something humans made up to make rules that change whenever you go to a different culture. Although there are some overlapping features figuring out what is true or false, right or wrong there isn’t a way to figure them out.
Rachel K. 1:00
With the McBrayer, he states that facts and opinions in schools are taught never to be crossed and that objective moral facts are not facts at all they are just moral believes. To the people that believe that moral fact though, objective moral facts, are facts in moral belief. He also goes on to say that students are taught to know that any claim with a good, right or wrong understanding is not a fact. Students are constantly taught that there are no moral facts but then they are told how to behave, that leads to confusion when the children grow up. From being taught that cheating is wrong, as the statement itself is an opinion, then being punished for cheating like it is a proven fact. The differences in the school system for facts and opinions are very misleading.
ReplyDeleteWith Boghossian in the article and philosophy bites he states that:
the words right and wrong should stop being used. Relativism isn't always a coherent way of responding sometimes is turns out to just be eliminating the thought of something that is shown or believed not to be true anymore. He also states that we should be so quick to give up on absolute moral facts. Relativism strives to be in my mind moral absolutes, and morality is relative to everything. People believe different things depending on where we are from, for example eating beef is frowned upon in some cultures and it is completely okay in other cultures. Leading to questions being drawn to each of they cultures as to why they believe what they do.
Mackenzie D. (2:00)
In McBrayer's essay, it made me realize how I was taught the same exact thing growing up and still to this day I would explain a fact and opinion just as he explained it was taught in schools. I always thought that a fact had to be proven and an opinion was your own thoughts and beliefs because that is what the common core standards are. Him and his son had a discussion about the difference between fact opinion and he was caught up on the "I believe" statement because does that mean it can be both a fact and opinion if he states a fact but puts "I believe" in front of it. Even now after being taught that way for so long and believing that way, it's still hard to understand what the difference between a fact and opinion is. But I have gotten a better grasp after reading the McBrayer article.
ReplyDeleteWhile listening to Boghossian's podcast, it was hard for me to gather all of the information but I started to understand more when he got to the part about etiquette and performing certain acts like slurping soup. This made sense to me because he said etiquette is based on respect of a certain behavior in a certain area because local customs should be respected, which was not relativism. I agree with this because if this was relativism it would be based on the moral code of the society and you could use any example to prove against this. Another thing I found interesting during this podcast was that relativists depend on something like a moral code and absolutists are based on certain circumstances. I agree with this idea because it's important to know where you stand and understand the difference between the two.
No matter how many times I read the articles, it was still hard for me to understand a lot of this. A lot of it is still black and white for me.
-Rebecca H. (1:00)
I feel McBrayers argument agains Cultural ReIativisim is valid; although I was surprised to find myself initially (and seemingly reflexively) in agreement with the common core definitions of fact and opinion. However, when McBrayer made the point of challenging his son with the concept of an idea being both fact and opinion something that current teaching does not overtly support even while it contradicts itself with the imposition of codes of conduct. If the schools deem all value statements as opinions, and therefore relativistic, then why are there consequences for a violation of school 'rules'. The answer seems to be that there are consequences for 'inappropriate behavior' meaning there must also be an opposite 'appropriate' behavior. This distinction shows a clear system of some behaviors being deemed better than others, as system that cultural relativism does not support as all moral codes, according to c.r., are dependent upon the culture in which they exist therefore eliminating the existence of such concepts as better and worse. If the schools truly believed that values are opinions, and therefore relative, there should be no consequences for any behaviors a student displays as all would be open to interpretation according to those opinions. Here though it seems that the existence of consequences serves to discourage undesirable behaviors which would lead me to believe there is in fact some objective moral truth even in the eyes of the institution that teaches it cannot exist.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed reactions to Boghossian's arguments. On the one hand, I see the logic in following the argument: If cultural relativism holds different cultures have different morals and that no one culture is any better, only different than another; and moral codes determine what is right and wrong; and if right and wrong are normative terms; and if normative statements describe the difference between what is and what ought to be- implying that one way is better than another, then cultural relativists must be mistaken. This seems valid. However, in contrast Boghossian later goes on to insist that the 'right thing to do' can absolutely depend on the circumstances: whether I SHOULD help someone depends on my circumstances and theirs, this seems relativistic to me. I feel a better statement in support of moral objective truths would be that there is always an absolute answer to whether I should help someone and the relativity only surrounds whether I COULD help that person according to differing circumstances. The difference I attempt to illustrate is that which Boghossian used earlier in the essay, that there are relative beliefs about actions, but not about the underlying moral codes.
-Jaime L. (2:00)
I believe that the argument by Justen McBrayer demonstrates invalid arguments when arguing facts and opinions. His example that he brings up was that the world is flat. However when people based upon the theory that the world was flat science and empirical evidence was not as widely used an excepted. This concluded that when the time this theory of the world being flat would be considered an opinion because it did not yield supporting evidence. And even in the modern world someone who states that they have proven anything is widely mistake because things cannot be proven supporting evidence can be laid to make one case grater than another.
ReplyDeleteThe argument laid out by baugmer was more laid out logically like stated before by other students he does speak in circles and that cultural relativism does the same. When he states about the car being broken down and someone helping this is actually a psychological phenomenon that has been tested through psychological studies to provide supporting evidence that this is a thing. When he states that there are no true facts I believe that this touches on the subject that I previously stated and has been stated by others that there is merely supporting evidence to theories.
Anthony B (1:00)
I would agree with McBrayer’s article “Why our Children Don’t Think There are Moral Facts.” I feel that children are brought up to accept that things are either fact or opinion. Students feel as though “man is the measure of all things.” The issue with this is that many of the things we once proved to be fact are now false. I also agree that our educational foundation is inconsistent making it harder for students to understand the distinction of facts and opinions. I don’t however feel as though McBrayer has a good case against moral relativism. I don’t believe that he is arguing against moral relativism, I just feel like he is making a claim that the educational system is lacking foundation.
ReplyDeleteBoghossian makes a clear argument that people lacking a religious background tend to rely on the moral beliefs set for them by the society in which they live. In many cases people make decisions based on what their religion tells them and are very unlikely to stray from that. I would also agree with Boghossian that in some situations it is difficult to answer the moral question and fight about what the correct answer actually is. I feel as though I side more with the absolutists because many aspects are considered before a final conclusion is made. Overall, I feel like Boghossian makes a great argument against moral relativism.
Lacie S (1:00)
I agree with the arguments that McBrayer made in his article. He discussed how we are taught to differentiate fact from opinion. In the article he states “there are no moral facts,” and he used the example copying homework assignments are wrong. There is no evidence backing the claim, which leads it to be an opinion of somebody that copying homework assignments is wrong. We are taught to believe people who have facts to back up the information that they are relaying to us.
ReplyDeleteBoghossian’s article talks about how each society has their own standards of what they deem is right and wrong. Each society has different views due to the personally values of each individual and their religious beliefs. There is so much variance between societies it makes it almost impossible for culture relativism to be true. It is a good thing that people are in societies where they agree majority of the time with one another.
Jeremy J. (1:00)