CAT ARTICLE DOSE – 24

. . . One of the most common beliefs that people have about morality is the idea that different times and cultures
have radically different moral standards. This assumption fuels moral relativism. Moral relativists believe cultures,
individuals, and times do differ in their basic moral values and that relativism is the best explanation for these
differences. Moral relativists also hold that all moral views are equally valid because each culture (or person)
invents their own morality.

The assumption that different times have radically different moral standards can also be seen in a position called
moral presentism, which maintains that we should not judge the past using our present moral standards. For
example, the American comedian Bill Maher recently said that Columbus committed atrocities, “but people back
then were generally atrocious.” He argued that our judging Columbus or Washington is like “getting mad at
yourself for not knowing what you know now when you were ten”, like saying, “stupid me for wanting to be a
breakdancer and ghostbuster.” His point is that it is unfair to judge the past (or his ten-year-old self) from the
current more mature perspective. While there are differences between relativism and presentism, they both
make this popular yet questionable assumption that different cultures have different moral standards. . . .

The . . . problem with the claim that morality changes with time and culture is that it doesn’t, since the
foundations of morality do not change. . . . The central claim I’m defending here is that it is a mistake to believe
there are fundamental moral differences between various times and cultures. In Ethics for Beginners (2020),
Peter Kreeft agrees, and argues that the essential content of ethics across cultures and times doesn’t vary since
“No one has succeeded in creating a system of values in which arbitrariness, self-indulgence, egotism, cruelty,
injustice, force, deliberate lying, and arrogant, sneering superiority were virtues, while wisdom, self-control,
altruism, kindness, justice, reason, honesty, and humility were vices. It is psychologically impossible to
experience a moral obligation to live the set of vices in the first list or to experience guilt about living the set of
virtues in the second.” Nietzsche or Ayn Rand succeeded in transforming cruelty and lying into virtues, or reason
and self-control into vices! The bottom line is we cannot escape the fact that these are foundational and
ubiquitous virtues and vices, and those who overestimate the moral differences between cultures or individuals
fail to recognize that.

Here’s another piece of evidence supporting the claim that moral foundations do not change with time. It was
well known not everyone in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Centuries thought slavery was good, but in fact, there
have always been moral reformers protesting slavery in their own time. Not only is it incorrect to say everyone
before the Nineteenth Century believed slavery was good, it is also disrespectful to the many abolitionists who
argued against slavery in their time. Some people have always protested slavery, and continue to do so today
(there are more slaves in the world now than ever before).

Some might passionately object by arguing that slavery is clearly the norm in history, claiming that this shows
that the idea that slavery is wrong is relatively new. But this claim is incorrect. Do you really think no Egyptian
slaves thought the practice unfair, for instance? Are there no records of Aztec slaves wanting justice as well as
revenge? Or consider again Jesus and Buddha. The way they treated the sick, poor, and outcast – basically, the
lowest or most needy in society – also imply that slavery is wrong. And while only a minority live up to truly
universal standards of morality – Jesus, Buddha, some saints or peasants you never heard of – that’s not a good
argument against the existence of those standards. They lived a morality that few in any time can live up to, even
when they agree with the ideas in principle.

In short, foundational moral standards have not changed. While it is true that slavery has been the norm for the
majority of history, the foundational moral obligations to reduce suffering and treat people with respect are not
new. But only a few heroes in each time period follow this moral law, which is written on the heart of every
human being.

[Turn to the next page to check your comprehension & analysis]

Page 1 of 8
PASSAGE DETAILS
• Source: Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong, by Paul Stearns | Philosophy Now
https://philosophynow.org/issues/156/Right_and_Wrong_About_Right_and_Wrong
• Length of the Extract: 719 words
• Flesch Kincaid Grade Level: 12.6
• Genre: Metaethics, Philosophy

MIND MAPS

After carefully reading the passage, evaluate your understanding through the following exercises:

1. Comprehension Check: This part is focused on identifying and summarising the main ideas in the passage.
Look for pivotal sentences or groups of sentences that encapsulate the core themes in each paragraph.
Summarise these main ideas using your own words. Your goal is to capture the essence of the passage
accurately.

2. Reasoning Check: In this part, you’ll engage with questions centred on inference and critical reasoning.
These questions will require you to analyse the logic and arguments presented in the passage and make
inferential deductions. Reflect on the strength of the reasoning, assess the evidence provided, and evaluate if
the conclusions drawn are well-supported.

Upon completing each exercise, review the provided answers to gauge your comprehension and reasoning
performance. This is a valuable opportunity to enhance your critical reading skills.”

Page 2 of 8
COMPREHENSION CHECK
“In this exercise, your task is to identify the key sentence or group of sentences in each paragraph that best encapsulates
its main idea. Once you’ve identified these, provide a concise summary of the principal theme or message conveyed in each
paragraph. Remember, your goal is to effectively distil the essence of the paragraph using the key sentences and your own
summarisation.”
KEY IDEA
[1]. . . One of the most common beliefs that people have about morality is the idea that different
times and cultures have radically different moral standards. [2] This assumption fuels moral
relativism. [3] Moral relativists believe cultures, individuals, and times do differ in their basic moral
values and that relativism is the best explanation for these differences. [4] Moral relativists also hold
that all moral views are equally valid because each culture (or person) invents their own morality.

[5] The assumption that different times have radically different moral standards can also be seen in
a position called moral presentism, which maintains that we should not judge the past using our
present moral standards. [5] For example, the American comedian Bill Maher recently said that
Columbus committed atrocities, “but people back then were generally atrocious.” [6] He argued
that our judging Columbus or Washington is like “getting mad at yourself for not knowing what you
know now when you were ten”, like saying, “stupid me for wanting to be a breakdancer and
ghostbuster.” [7] His point is that it is unfair to judge the past (or his ten-year-old self) from the
current more mature perspective. [8] While there are differences between relativism and
presentism, they both make this popular yet questionable assumption that different cultures have
different moral standards. . . .

[9] The . . . problem with the claim that morality changes with time and culture is that it doesn’t,
since the foundations of morality do not change. . . . [10] The central claim I’m defending here is
that it is a mistake to believe there are fundamental moral differences between various times and
cultures. [11] In Ethics for Beginners (2020), Peter Kreeft agrees, and argues that the essential
content of ethics across cultures and times doesn’t vary since “No one has succeeded in creating
a system of values in which arbitrariness, self-indulgence, egotism, cruelty, injustice, force,
deliberate lying, and arrogant, sneering superiority were virtues, while wisdom, self-control,
altruism, kindness, justice, reason, honesty, and humility were vices. [12] It is psychologically
impossible to experience a moral obligation to live the set of vices in the first list or to experience
guilt about living the set of virtues in the second.” [13] Nietzsche or Ayn Rand succeeded in
transforming cruelty and lying into virtues, or reason and self-control into vices! [14] The bottom
line is we cannot escape the fact that these are foundational and ubiquitous virtues and vices, and
those who overestimate the moral differences between cultures or individuals fail to recognize that.

[15] Here’s another piece of evidence supporting the claim that moral foundations do not change
with time. [16] It was well known not everyone in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Centuries thought
slavery was good, but in fact, there have always been moral reformers protesting slavery in their
own time. [17] Not only is it incorrect to say everyone before the Nineteenth Century believed
slavery was good, it is also disrespectful to the many abolitionists who argued against slavery in
their time. [18] Some people have always protested slavery, and continue to do so today (there are
more slaves in the world now than ever before).

[19] Some might passionately object by arguing that slavery is clearly the norm in history, claiming
that this shows that the idea that slavery is wrong is relatively new. [20] But this claim is incorrect.
[21] Do you really think no Egyptian slaves thought the practice unfair, for instance? [22] Are there
no records of Aztec slaves wanting justice as well as revenge? [23] Or consider again Jesus and
Buddha. [24] The way they treated the sick, poor, and outcast – basically, the lowest or most needy
in society – also imply that slavery is wrong. [25] And while only a minority live up to truly universal
standards of morality – Jesus, Buddha, some saints or peasants you never heard of – that’s not a
good argument against the existence of those standards. [26] They lived a morality that few in any
time can live up to, even when they agree with the ideas in principle.

[27] In short, foundational moral standards have not changed. [28] While it is true that slavery has
been the norm for the majority of history, the foundational moral obligations to reduce suffering
and treat people with respect are not new. [29] But only a few heroes in each time period follow
this moral law, which is written on the heart of every human being.

[Check your answers on the next page]

Page 3 of 8
 KEY IDEA
[1]. . . One of the most common beliefs that people have about morality is the idea that different Introducing moral relativism, the
times and cultures have radically different moral standards. [2] This assumption fuels moral belief that moral values can vary
relativism. [3] Moral relativists believe cultures, individuals, and times do differ in their basic moral between cultures and individuals.
values and that relativism is the best explanation for these differences. [4] Moral relativists also hold
that all moral views are equally valid because each culture (or person) invents their own morality.

[5] The assumption that different times have radically different moral standards can also be seen in Outlining the common assumption
a position called moral presentism, which maintains that we should not judge the past using our of both moral relativism and
present moral standards. [5] For example, the American comedian Bill Maher recently said that presentism, that moral standards
Columbus committed atrocities, “but people back then were generally atrocious.” [6] He argued can vary.
that our judging Columbus or Washington is like “getting mad at yourself for not knowing what you
know now when you were ten”, like saying, “stupid me for wanting to be a breakdancer and
ghostbuster.” [7] His point is that it is unfair to judge the past (or his ten-year-old self) from the
current more mature perspective. [8] While there are differences between relativism and
presentism, they both make this popular yet questionable assumption that different cultures have
different moral standards. . . .

[9] The . . . problem with the claim that morality changes with time and culture is that it doesn’t, The author asserts that it is
since the foundations of morality do not change. . . . [10] The central claim I’m defending here is erroneous to believe in
that it is a mistake to believe there are fundamental moral differences between various times and fundamental moral differences
cultures. [11] In Ethics for Beginners (2020), Peter Kreeft agrees, and argues that the essential across different times and
content of ethics across cultures and times doesn’t vary since “No one has succeeded in creating cultures.
a system of values in which arbitrariness, self-indulgence, egotism, cruelty, injustice, force,
deliberate lying, and arrogant, sneering superiority were virtues, while wisdom, self-control,
altruism, kindness, justice, reason, honesty, and humility were vices. [12] It is psychologically
impossible to experience a moral obligation to live the set of vices in the first list or to experience
guilt about living the set of virtues in the second.” [13] Nietzsche or Ayn Rand succeeded in
transforming cruelty and lying into virtues, or reason and self-control into vices! [14] The bottom
line is we cannot escape the fact that these are foundational and ubiquitous virtues and vices, and
those who overestimate the moral differences between cultures or individuals fail to recognize that.

[15] Here’s another piece of evidence supporting the claim that moral foundations do not change Arguing that there are universal
with time. [16] It was well known not everyone in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Centuries thought virtues and vices that form the
slavery was good, but in fact, there have always been moral reformers protesting slavery in their basis of moral obligation, which
own time. [17] Not only is it incorrect to say everyone before the Nineteenth Century believed cannot be reversed.
slavery was good, it is also disrespectful to the many abolitionists who argued against slavery in
their time. [18] Some people have always protested slavery, and continue to do so today (there are
more slaves in the world now than ever before).

[19] Some might passionately object by arguing that slavery is clearly the norm in history, claiming Offering historical evidence
that this shows that the idea that slavery is wrong is relatively new. [20] But this claim is incorrect. against the changeability of moral
[21] Do you really think no Egyptian slaves thought the practice unfair, for instance? [22] Are there standards, with reference to the
no records of Aztec slaves wanting justice as well as revenge? [23] Or consider again Jesus and continual protest against slavery,
Buddha. [24] The way they treated the sick, poor, and outcast – basically, the lowest or most needy and countering a potential
in society – also imply that slavery is wrong. [25] And while only a minority live up to truly universal objection by suggesting that the
standards of morality – Jesus, Buddha, some saints or peasants you never heard of – that’s not a historical prevalence of slavery
good argument against the existence of those standards. [26] They lived a morality that few in any does not equate to its moral
time can live up to, even when they agree with the ideas in principle. acceptance.

[27] In short, foundational moral standards have not changed. [28] While it is true that slavery has Concluding the argument by
been the norm for the majority of history, the foundational moral obligations to reduce suffering asserting the unchanging nature
and treat people with respect are not new. [29] But only a few heroes in each time period follow of foundational moral standards,
this moral law, which is written on the heart of every human being. despite the limited adherence to
them.

[More Analysis on the next page]

Page 4 of 8
Central Theme: The central theme of the passage is a critique of moral relativism and presentism, arguing that there exist
foundational moral standards that are consistent across different times and cultures.

Tone: The tone of the passage is assertive, academic and argumentative, providing a logical argument against the idea of
shifting moral standards and using historical examples to support its point.

Structure of the Passage: The passage begins by introducing the concepts of moral relativism and presentism, suggesting
that these ideas are based on the assumption that moral standards can vary across different times and cultures (Para 1 & 2).
The author asserts a counter-argument, proposing that there exist unchanging moral foundations that transcend culture and
time, citing the universal virtues and vices that form the basis of moral obligation (Para 3). To support this, the author
provides historical evidence, such as the consistent protest against slavery throughout history, to demonstrate the existence
of these consistent moral standards (Para 4). Anticipating potential counter-arguments regarding the historical prevalence of
slavery, the author argues that prevalence does not equate to moral acceptance (Para 5). Finally, the passage concludes
with a reaffirmation of the central argument, stating the unchanging nature of foundational moral standards despite their
limited observance (Para 6).

[Check your Reasoning on the next page]

Page 5 of 8
REASONING CHECK
Choose the best alternatives for each of the 7 questions.

Question 1:
The passage mentions moral relativism, but does not give any information about why it is called so. Based solely on the
passage, what might be the reason for coining the name "moral relativism"?
A. It suggests the idea that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture or society.
B. It indicates that moral judgments are based on the relative position of the observer.
C. It proposes that moral values are not objective, but are subject to change over time.

Question 2:
Which one of the following best sums up Bill Maher's reasoning and the author's major critique of that reasoning?
A. Maher believes judging past moral norms using current standards is unfair, and the author criticizes this view for
oversimplifying historical morality.
B. Maher posits that that it is inevitable for moral standards to evolve over time, while the author condemns him for
advocating moral relativism.
C. Maher suggests moral standards have remained consistent, which the author opposes as having an unrealistically upbeat
outlook on things.

Question 3:
"Nietzsche or Ayn Rand succeeded in transforming cruelty and lying into virtues, or reason and self-control into vices!" What
is the author trying to say here?
A. The traditional conception of virtues and vices has been shaken up as a result of the work of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.
B. The author is using sarcasm to refute the claim that Nietzsche and Ayn Rand have successfully redefined moral values.
C. The author has high praise for Nietzsche and Ayn Rand because of the way in which they questioned established moral
norms.

Question 4:
What can you infer regarding "abolitionists"?
A. Abolitionists were the proponents of slavery in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Centuries.
B. Abolitionists were individuals who protested against slavery in their time.
C. Abolitionists were people who acknowledged the societal norm of slavery.

Question 5:
"Some might passionately object by arguing that slavery is clearly the norm in history." What is the moot point that these
people are making?
A. Slavery has always been questioned and resisted and therefore they passionately object to it.
B. Slavery was an exceptional practice in history and therefore we should not attach modern views on to it.
C. Slavery was a common practice in the past and therefore it was morally justified at that time.

Question 6:
"Or consider again Jesus and Buddha." Why does the author ask the reader to consider Jesus and Buddha?
A. Jesus and Buddha were abolitionists who stood against slavery.
B. Jesus and Buddha set examples for acceptable moral practices.
C. Jesus and Buddha were moral relativists who believed in the changing nature of morality.

Question 7:
"But only a few heroes in each time period follow this moral law, which is written on the heart of every human being." What is
the essence of this sentence?
A. Moral laws are subject to change from one time period to another.
B. Only a minority in each time period stand against societal norms.
C. Fundamental moral values are inherent to all, but only a few truly adhere to them.

[Answers on the next page]

Page 6 of 8
Question 1:
The passage mentions moral relativism, but does not give any information about why it is called so. Based solely on the passage, what
might be the reason for coining the name "moral relativism"?
A. It suggests the idea that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture or society.
B. It indicates that moral judgments are based on the relative position of the observer.
C. It proposes that moral values are not objective, but are subject to change over time.

A - Correct. The text describes moral relativism as the belief that cultures and individuals differ in their basic moral values, suggesting that
morality is relative to societal or cultural norms.
B - Incorrect. The passage doesn't suggest that moral judgments are dependent on the relative position of the observer.
C - Incorrect. While the passage discusses the change in moral standards over time and across cultures, it doesn't specifically tie this
concept to moral relativism.

Question 2:
Which one of the following best sums up Bill Maher's reasoning and the author's major critique of that reasoning?
A. Maher believes judging past moral norms using current standards is unfair, and the author criticizes this view for oversimplifying
historical morality.
B. Maher posits that that it is inevitable for moral standards to evolve over time, while the author condemns him for advocating moral
relativism.
C. Maher suggests moral standards have remained consistent, which the author opposes as having an unrealistically upbeat outlook on
things.

A - Correct. The author discusses Maher's position that we should not judge the past using our present moral standards, and criticizes this
view for being overly simplistic.
B - Incorrect. While Maher is used as an example of moral presentism, the text does not specifically indicate that he believes changing
moral standards over time is a natural occurrence.
C - Incorrect. The passage does not suggest that Maher believes moral standards have remained consistent.

Question 3:
"Nietzsche or Ayn Rand succeeded in transforming cruelty and lying into virtues, or reason and self-control into vices!" What is the author
trying to say here?
A. The traditional conception of virtues and vices has been shaken up as a result of the work of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.
B. The author is using sarcasm to refute the claim that Nietzsche and Ayn Rand have successfully redefined moral values.
C. The author has high praise for Nietzsche and Ayn Rand because of the way in which they questioned established moral norms.

A - Incorrect. The author is actually critiquing the idea that Nietzsche and Ayn Rand have successfully changed the interpretation of virtues
and vices.
B - Correct. The author is sarcastically countering the claim that Nietzsche and Ayn Rand have successfully redefined virtues and vices.
C - Incorrect. The author is not lauding Nietzsche and Ayn Rand for their critique of morality, but rather is countering the notion that they
have successfully shifted moral perspectives.

Question 4:
What can you infer regarding "abolitionists"?
A. Abolitionists were the proponents of slavery in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Centuries.
B. Abolitionists were individuals who protested against slavery in their time.
C. Abolitionists were people who acknowledged the societal norm of slavery.

A. Abolitionists were the proponents of slavery in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Centuries.

B. Abolitionists were individuals who protested against slavery in their time.
C. Abolitionists were people who acknowledged the societal norm of slavery.

Question 5:
"Some might passionately object by arguing that slavery is clearly the norm in history." What is the moot point that these people are
making?
A. Slavery has always been questioned and resisted and therefore they passionately object to it.
B. Slavery was an exceptional practice in history and therefore we should not attach modern views on to it.
C. Slavery was a common practice in the past and therefore it was morally justified at that time.

A - Incorrect. This contradicts the argument being made by those people. They are arguing for the prevalence of slavery, not its resistance.
B - Incorrect. This is the opposite of the point being made. The people arguing are stating that slavery was a norm, not an exception.
C - Correct. The people are claiming that slavery was an ordinary part of historical societies, often accepted without question.

[Continued…]

Page 7 of 8
Question 6:
"Or consider again Jesus and Buddha." Why does the author ask the reader to consider Jesus and Buddha?
A. Jesus and Buddha were abolitionists who stood against slavery.
B. Jesus and Buddha set examples for acceptable moral practices.
C. Jesus and Buddha were moral relativists who believed in the changing nature of morality.

A - Incorrect. The passage doesn't suggest that Jesus and Buddha were abolitionists. They are being considered for their moral values.
B - Correct. The author wants the reader to remember the examples of Jesus and Buddha as models of high moral standards.
C - Incorrect. There's no suggestion in the text that Jesus and Buddha were moral relativists.

Question 7:
"But only a few heroes in each time period follow this moral law, which is written on the heart of every human being." What is the essence of
this sentence?
A. Moral laws are subject to change from one time period to another.
B. Only a minority in each time period stand against societal norms.
C. Fundamental moral values are inherent to all, but only a few truly adhere to them.

A - Incorrect. The passage suggests that the moral law is unchanging, not varying with time.
B - Incorrect. While this choice speaks to the minority who adhere to the moral law, it doesn't capture the full essence of the sentence,
which includes the inherent knowledge of moral law in everyone.
C - Correct. This choice captures both the universality of moral laws and the small number of individuals who strictly follow them.

Page 8 of 8