Explain carefully Wong’s distinction between meta-ethical relativism and normative moral relativism. Why, according to Wong, is extreme moral relativism philosophically indefensible?
What will be an ideal response?
Answer:
He defends MORAL RELATIVISM: the doctrine that there is no single universally valid moral code.
Meta-ethical position: No single moral code is valid in all times and places
Normative moral relativism: maintains that it is wrong to judge others according to our own moral values and or to coerce them into adopting our values. One reason for this is that widely differing moral codes are found to exist in diverse cultures.
extreme moral relativism philosophically indefensible? because what we end up arguing for is a UNIVERSAL VALUE OF TOLERANCE.
But even if this is the case, there are good reasons for rejecting universalism and for adopting a qualified relativism. This will allow for tolerance as well as make it possible to judge the actions of others in certain cases.
For example, we could condemn a morally reprehensible action like torture and sill admit that there is no single moral code that everyone must follow.
You might also like to view...
Which of the following contrasts is part of the concept of yinyang?
a. happy and sad b. rest and work c. truth and falsity d. moon and sun
Identify which fallacy has been committed. Bottled water ad: Life takes a lot out of you. Dasani helps put it back in. A moment with Dasani helps replenish both body and mind
a. False Implication b. Euphemism c. Weasel Words d. Vague Comparison e. Amphibole f. Fallacy of Division g. Abusive Ad Hominem
In a communist society:
a. there are no profits b. there are no classes c. the profits are equally divided d. the state runs the economy
Moral relativists claim that there are moral principles shared by all people.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)