ipl-logo

Peter Boghossian's Argument 'No Halfway House'

972 Words4 Pages

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 …show more content…

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 …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
1376 Words | 6 Pages

Conclusion Moral objectivism is the idea that moral standards are capable of being applied universally around the world. There are many challenges to this theory stripping it of its validity. However, Shafer-Landau and other philosophers provide evidence to some exceptions still allowing moral objectivity to stand and be valid.

Read More
2172 Words | 9 Pages

Humans have often disregarded that evil is inherited by nature; humans in the modern day are apparent to doing "good," but overall goodness is controlled by the underlying aspect of order and civilization. The issue of inheriting evil by primal desire is explicitly shown in the novel The Lord of the Flies by William Golding. The novel uses the characters as vessels to express his idea. In the novel "Lord of The Flies" by William Golding, he , who expresses the idea that man's inheritance is evil by showing that humans are savages by nature and are moved by survival, turning to selfishness, brutality and dominance. Golding shows significantly how man's instinct for brutality and immorality instigates evil.

Read More
424 Words | 2 Pages

Moral Relativism, should it be abandoned or not? This was the original question that came to my mind when starting off reading this excerpt. Mary Midgley, the author of this story, mentioned that now days we as people deny that we will ever be able to understand a culture that is not our own. That got me thinking and as I was thinking I found what she said to be relatively true. I feel as if society has shaped us as young adults to judge our culture as being the best and all other cultures as coming up second best.

Read More
517 Words | 3 Pages

Ethical relativism proposes that there are no universal principles of morality; rather, moral principles are unique to and determined by a society’s culture. Both Pellegrino and Macklin challenge the theory of ethical relativism in their own respective papers by arguing that there are universal moral principles in healthcare. I concur with Pellegrino and Macklin’s assessment of ethical relativism, as I have two arguments against the applicability of ethical relativism in healthcare: First, like both Pellegrino and Macklin, I acknowledge that there are universal principles of morality in medicine. Second, I find fault with the premise of the theory of ethical relativism. When exploring ethics in healthcare across the world, Macklin examined

Read More
547 Words | 3 Pages

Some kind of form of morality is present and valued by all societies around the world in different ways. Within each society, individuals are raised with and inherit a specific set of moral codes and rules that are

Read More
1286 Words | 6 Pages

Relativism suggests that moral values and duties are contingent upon individual preferences or societal norms, leading to a subjective understanding of morality. However, Kant's theory overcomes this challenge by grounding morality in reason. According to Kant, moral principles are not arbitrary or culturally determined; they are derived from rationality and hold universal validity. By anchoring morality in reason, Kant establishes a foundation for ethical principles that transcend personal biases, cultural differences, and changing societal norms. This allows for the pursuit of objective and universal moral truths, fostering a more stable and consistent ethical framework.

Read More
709 Words | 3 Pages

This is because of moral relativism’s take on ethical dilemmas, and the view that there are a number of disagreements among people as to the nature of morality. An act can

Read More
422 Words | 2 Pages

C.S. Lewis had three main objectives to moral relativism. The first one is the Moral law of right and wrong. Lewis says, “whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in right and wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later” (Lewis, 2007, p.19). “He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining” (Lewis, 2007, p.17). What Lewis is saying is that people often feel that if someone does something wrong to them then it is morally wrong, however when the roles are reversed and they do something wrong to someone else then it is not morally considered wrong from their point of view.

Read More
1465 Words | 6 Pages

“Is Morality Relative or are there Objective Moral Truths?” In A Defense of Ethical Relativism by Ruth Benedict from her “Anthropology and the Abnormal,” Journal of General Psychology, in her part take on Modern Social Anthropology, Benedict views ethical relativism as part of the new modern civilization in which each society has their own moral views and “like a work of art” each culture has a theme and certain tendencies which they chose to favor. On the contrary, The Case Against Moral Relativism by Louis P. Pojman, moral relativism is viewed as a misled argument by relativists and explains in detail some of the moral differences in each culture and how this affects humanity as a whole. Subjectivism, “Morality is in the eye of the beholder,”

Read More
747 Words | 3 Pages

R01365382 Ethical Relativism is the belief that what is morally right and wrong varies from culture to culture, or even from person to person. Ruth Benedict writes, “A Defense of Ethical Relativism”, in which she presents data she has collected to defend ethical relativism. In contrast, Louis Pojman writes, “A Critique of Ethical Relativism”, in which he presents various problems with ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is not a good way of deciding between what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

Read More
1070 Words | 5 Pages

In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound.

Read More
1020 Words | 5 Pages

Every society has its own unique cultures in which people will have different ideas of moral codes. The diversity of these cultures cannot be said to be correct or incorrect. Every society has independent standards of ethic within their society and these standards are culture-bound. Cultural Relativism has a perception in which rightness or wrongness of an action depends entirely within the bounds of the culture. This theory opposes the belief in the objectivity of moral truth.

Read More
2321 Words | 10 Pages

In other words, “right” or “wrong” are culture specific, what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality that exist, no one has the right to judge another societies custom (Ess, 2009). Cultural Relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What makes up right and wrong is determined solely by individual or the society (Ess, 2009). Since the truth is not object, there can be no standards which applies to all cultures.

Read More
546 Words | 3 Pages

The primary difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is the belief that moral standards are absolute and apply universally, or that they are subjective to the individual or cultural standards. Moral absolutism allows for a fundamental belief moral principles are objectively true and can be determined through reason, logic, and reflection. Moral absolutism establishes a foundation for basing moral judgments and clear principles that do not change over time and maintain that moral principles are always right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances. These principles apply all the time and to all people regardless of cultural or individual beliefs promoting stability and predictability as moral judgment is not swayed by subjective or cultural factors. (Gomez, n.d.) Moral relativism is the idea that moral principles are relative to the culture or society in which they are held, and there are no objective moral truths that are universally applicable.

Read More
2607 Words | 11 Pages

(Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group. 2. A moral claim is true, relative to a culture’s moral code, if and only if the claim is generally accepted within that cultural

Read More

More about Peter Boghossian's Argument 'No Halfway House'

Open Document