Deck 55: James Rachels: Morality Is Not Relative

Question 1

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

A) all cultures have the same moral code.
B) there are objective standards in ethics.
C) there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics.
D) some cultures have better moral codes than others.

Answer 1

C

Question 2

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

A) different cultures have the same moral codes.
B) different cultures have common values.
C) different cultures see objective moral truth differently.
D) different cultures have different moral codes.

Answer 2

D

Question 3

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

A) there is no objective moral truth.
B) cultures differ.
C) moral codes exist.
D) moral codes differ.

Answer 3

A

Question 4

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

A) its conclusion.
B) nothing.
C) the existence of relative truth.
D) the existence of objective truth.

Question 5

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

A) plausible.
B) reasonable.
C) dubious.
D) coherent.

Question 6

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

A) geography.
B) moral systems.
C) belief systems.
D) ethical standards.

Question 7

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

A) there is no objective truth in morality.
B) there are too many premises.
C) the conclusion follows from the premises.
D) the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Question 8

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

A) a reality.
B) technologically inferior to our own.
C) different from our own,
D) morally inferior to our own.

Question 9

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

A) can be morally right.
B) cannot be morally right.
C) would be revered.
D) cannot be morally wrong.

Question 10

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

A) does not signal a fundamentally different attitude toward children.
B) signals a fundamentally different attitude toward children.
C) is a myth.
D) shows a total disregard for the welfare of children.

Question 11

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

A) personal conscience.
B) one's society.
C) universal morality.
D) religious codes.

Question 12

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.

Question 13

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.