The Maze of Moral Relativism

"There is no half-way house called 'moral relativism,' in which we continue to use normative vocabulary with the stipulation that it is to be understood as relativized to particular moral codes. If there are no absolute facts about morality, 'right' and 'wrong' would have to join 'witch' in the dustbin of failed concepts."

Read the article here.

Justice for Hedgehogs

Ronald Dworkin believes there are absolute moral values, that when we make a moral or ethical judgment, we are interpreting, and that many of our interpretations have truth values: true or false, and therefore, right or wrong.

"Well, for example, if I say abortion is wrong, I believe what I say is true, not that it's one legitimate opinion among many. I hate it when people say: 'It's OK for gay people to get married but that's only my opinion.' You can't think it's just your opinion or you wouldn't hold it. Imagine a judge who's just sentenced a man to jail for life saying: 'Other judges might have found differently and they're entitled to their opinions.' Who could reasonably say such a thing?"

Read Stuart Jeffries' review of Dworkin's new book in The Guardian here. 

Relativism

The “handout” for our upcoming discussion of relativism (on M23) consists of two short entries from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). First, read the section entitled “Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism,” on the Ethics page. Then, read the entry on relativism. Finish these before the Rachels’ article, as they will help to place the latter in context.

Science & Religion on Morality

Just in time for our section on religion and ethics, the NYT has published a review on Sam Harris' new book, How Science Can Determine Human Values. The review takes issue with Harris' position, that science can uncover the source of human morality, but along the way it provides a fair mapping of what's at stake in the larger debate, as well as tying in strands from realism, relativism, and utilitarian theory.