Ima Relativist claims that there's no clear way to resolve moral differences. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is a good objection to her argument?
Ima Relativist claims that there's no clear way to resolve moral differences. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is a good objection to her argument?
We need a way to reason about ethics that would appeal to intelligent and open-minded people of all cultures -- and that would do for ethics what scientific method does for science.
But the other objection is good too.
Ima Relativist claims that there's no clear way to resolve moral differences. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is a good objection to her argument?
There may be truths that we have no solid way of knowing about. Did it rain on this spot 500 years ago today? There's some truth about this, but we'll never know it. Only a small percentage of all truths are knowable. So there could be objective moral truths, even if we had no solid way to know them.
But the other objection is good too.
Ima Relativist claims that there's no clear way to resolve moral differences. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is a good objection to her argument?
The better approach would try to find ways to resolve moral differences. We need a way to reason about ethics that would appeal to intelligent and open-minded people of all cultures -- and that would do for ethics what scientific method does for science. We'll work on this later.