Ima Relativist claims that cultures disagree widely about morality. For example, infanticide is wrong in our society but was right in ancient Rome. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
Ima Relativist claims that cultures disagree widely about morality. For example, infanticide is wrong in our society but was right in ancient Rome. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
Cultures disagree widely about anthropology or religion or even physics. Yet there may still be a truth of the matter about these subjects. So a wide disagreement on moral issues wouldn't show that there's no truth of the matter on moral issues.
We might also question whether cultures differ so deeply about morality. There seem to be many common areas -- for example, the golden rule.
Ima Relativist claims that cultures disagree widely about morality. For example, infanticide is wrong in our society but was right in ancient Rome. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
This isn't relevant to Ima's present argument.
Ima argues that, since cultures disagree about morality, there can't be objective moral truths. She assumes this doubtful premise: "No area that cultures disagree about can express objective truths."
Ima Relativist claims that cultures disagree widely about morality. For example, infanticide is wrong in our society but was right in ancient Rome. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
Is your mind really that closed?
Ima argues that, since cultures disagree about morality, there can't be objective moral truths. She assumes this doubtful premise: "No area that cultures disagree about can express objective truths."