james rachels on moral relativism

"different cultures have different moral codes, therefore there is no objective truth in morality" rachels disagrees attacking the validity and soundness of the argument as well as suspects the conclusion as it can be harmful

there are different culturals in moral standards

what is infact in case as opposed to what is believed to be the case; we can be mistaken about what is true

just because there is a group believing one way and another group believing the other, doesn't mean both are permissible or plausible or that one isn't actually true, rachels refers to flat earthers

• [1] "we could no longer say that one society’s standards were better than another’s"
• [2] we could no longer criticize our own society’s moral standards
• [3] there would be no such thing as moral progress

*if moral relaivism is true, then we would be saying everything we've done so far in the womans rights movement was just the times changing, not for the better or worse

"there are some moral rules follow throughout all societies as it's essential for the survival and continuity of the society"

*we should ensure that our beliefs and morals are created with reason

dr. moore says benedict is a normative relativist which she believes is flawed

*if moral relativism doesnt matter than the standard of being tolerant can also be denied

even if objective moral relativism is true, we can still be tolerant

my stance on the subject is: