Peter Boghossian's Argument 'No Halfway House'

J.T. Melia

February 9th, 2023

Professor Meghant, Sudan

UF200

No Halfway House

Peter Boghossian is a philosopher who argues that there is no "halfway house" between objectivism and relativism in ethics. This argument has big implications for the study of ethics and raises questions about the foundations of moral reasoning. In this essay, I will examine Boghossian's argument and explore the reasons he gives for his claim that there is no "halfway house" between objectivism and relativism. I will also consider the implications of his argument for the field of ethics and offer my own perspective on the matter. To begin with, it is important to understand what is meant by objectivism and relativism in ethics. Objectivism is the view that moral

This view holds that there is no objective standard that can be used universally and that there is no way to determine what is right or wrong in a moral sense. Relativists believe that moral claims are dependent on context and that what is considered right or wrong in one culture may be different in another. Moral relativism is philosophical. The moral relativism viewpoint holds that there is no objective, universal standard of morality and that moral truths are relative to individual or cultural perspectives. Proponents of moral relativism argue that morality is a culturally constructed concept that varies from place to place and time to time. They maintain that moral codes and principles are shaped by social, historical, and cultural factors and that what they consider right or wrong, good or bad, can vary greatly between different societies and individuals. According to moral relativists, there is no single, universal moral system that applies to all people, and that moral claims are not based on facts but on cultural and personal opinions. They argue that moral relativism allows for greater tolerance and respect for cultural diversity, as it recognizes that different societies have different moral codes and that there is no one right way of doing things. However, critics argue that moral relativism leads to a lack of moral direction and clarity and

This event can lead to intolerance and close-mindedness since those who hold to moral objectivism may not be open to other perspectives or alternative ways of thinking. In Boghossian's view, this kind of dogmatism undermines the ability of people to engage in meaningful dialogue and to learn from each other. Given these problems with both objectivism and relativism, it might seem that we are stuck with a problem in the study of ethics. However, Boghossian argues that this issue is not the case. He suggests that there is a way to overcome the problems associated with both objectivism and relativism, and that we can find a basis for moral judgment that is both grounded in reason and sensitive to cultural differences. He argues that we need to find a way to balance the need for moral objectivity with the recognition of cultural diversity, and that we must find a way to make moral claims that are