Week 4: Moral Relativism

Previously,
The challenge of religion

A. The challenge of relativism

In The Elements of Moral Philosophy (3rd edition), James Rachels discusses an

argument which contains the conclusion that there is no such thing as
objectivity in morality. The argument’s only reason is that there are varying
moral codes in cultures. The idea conveyed by the argument may be expressed
in the question, how can one know what is right and wrong when there are
these different moral codes? One way that may shed light on this idea is to
think about each set of moral codes as like a way of doing something. A way of
cooking fried rice is to have bahao, that is, old but still okay rice, or cooked
rice ready before starting the fire. Another way is to cook the rice in the pan. If
one is relativist regarding way of cooking rice, she might say that there is no
better way, since the product is fried rice. Similarly, if one is relativist
regarding morality, she would say that there is no better moral code.

That there is no better moral code challenges ethics because in ethics there is
such a thing as a better moral code. The better code is the moral requirement,
which is, again, the requirement to balance consideration of the welfare of
oneself and that of others. This requirement is clear, for instance, in Kantian
ethics. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) talks about the Categorical Imperative,
which, in one of its formulations, conveys respect for persons. Respect for
persons cannot be not the only way or cannot be not the better moral
prescription.

B. Discussion question:
Do you think the relativists are right? Discuss your answer.

For this week, we are going to use Flipgrid for this. To access embedded topic,
go to the module and click on Discussion, then Join with your guest password.
Your guest password is: Ethics + your group number. So, if you belong to
Group 18, your guest password is Ethics18.

There is mic only option. But in this one, please don’t be camera shy.

Also, I will comment on your response.