Ima Relativist claims that morality is a product of culture. Just as societies create different styles of food and clothing, so too they create different moral codes. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
Ima Relativist claims that morality is a product of culture. Just as societies create different styles of food and clothing, so too they create different moral codes. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
How would it come into being then? Would it just spring up out of thin air?
Ima argues that, since morality is a product of culture, there can't be objective moral truths. She assumes this doubtful premise: "No product of culture can express objective truths."
Ima Relativist claims that morality is a product of culture. Just as societies create different styles of food and clothing, so too they create different moral codes. So there can't be objective moral truths.
Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
Every book is a product of culture; and yet many books express some objective truths. So too, a moral code could be a product of culture, and yet still express some objective truths about how people ought to live.
Ima Relativist claims that morality is a product of culture. Just as societies create different styles of food and clothing, so too they create different moral codes. 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 morality is a product of culture, there can't be objective moral truths. She assumes this doubtful premise: "No product of culture can express objective truths."