Yahoo Web Search

Search results

  1. Feb 19, 2004 · 1. Historical Background. 2. Forms and Arguments. 3. Experimental Philosophy. 4. Descriptive Moral Relativism. 5. Are Moral Disagreements Rationally Resolvable? 6. Metaethical Moral Relativism. 7. Mixed Positions: A Rapprochement between Relativists and Objectivists? 8. Relativism and Tolerance. Bibliography. Academic Tools.

  2. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong. Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist. [2]

  3. People also ask

  4. ethical relativism, the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society. (Read Peter Singer’s Britannica entry on ethics.) Arguments for ethical relativism.

  5. Moral relativism has taken many different shapes throughout the history of philosophy, and it is debated in popular discourses—especially politics and religion—as well as in metaethics. It is controversial because it seems to undermine the possibility of finding common ground in ethical debates that shape practical action or political policies.

  6. Jan 31, 2024 · Metaethical moral relativism reduces Westacott’s claims to “The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.”. What many people miss are the requisite components of “a specific community” or “a group of ...

  7. 1. The relativity of morality has usually been taken as an argument against the objectivity of ethics. According to Mackie’s well-known position, moral relativism represents one of the main arguments against moral objectivism: the argument from relativity has some force – Mackie writes – simply because the actual variations in the moral ...

  8. Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other, that things are right or wrong relative to Catholic morality, say, and different things are right or wrong relative to Confucian morality, but nothing is right or wrong simpliciter.