Exam 55: James Rachels: Morality Is Not Relative

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -Rachels argues that often the differences between cultures lie not in their values but in their

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -Rachels asserts that cultural relativism implies that the idea of moral progress is

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -According to Rachels, the cultural differences argument proves

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -Rachels shows that the main problem with the cultural differences argument is that

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -According to Rachels, from the fact that different cultures have different moral codes we cannot conclude that

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -If cultural relativism were true, social reformers

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -According to Rachels, cultural relativism says that

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -Rachels denies that different cultures have different moral codes.

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -Cultural relativism implies that deciding whether actions are right or wrong is a matter of consulting the moral standards of

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -The cultural differences argument shows that cultural relativism is true.

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -Rachels believes that infanticide among the Eskimos

Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls "cultural relativism," to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. He contends that the central argument, "the cultural difference argument," is invalid because even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter any more than the fact that flat-Earthers disagree with round-Earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter. Rachels points out three unfavorable consequences of cultural relativism that make it implausible. He also points out two virtues of the doctrine. -According to Rachels, the first premise in the cultural differences argument is