David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 85 (1):139 - 152 (1990)
If a native of India asserts "Killing cattle is wrong" and a Nebraskan asserts "Killing cattle is not wrong", and both judgments agree with their respective moralities and both moralities are internally consistent, then the moral relativist says both judgments are fully correct. At this point relativism bifurcates. One branch which we call content relativism denies that the two people are contradicting each other. The idea is that the content of a moral judgment is a function of the overall moral point of view from which it proceeds. The second branch which we call truth value relativism affirms that the two judgments are contradictory. Truth value relativism appears to be logically incoherent. How can contradictory judgments be fully correct? For though there will be a sense of correctness in which each judgment is correct — namely by that of being correct relative to the morality relative to which each was expressed — if contradictory, the judgments cannot both be true, and thus cannot both be correct in this most basic sense of correctness. We defend truth value relativism against this sort of charge of logical incoherence by showing it can be accommodated by the existing semantical metatheories of deontic logic. Having done this we go on to argue that truth value relativism is the best version of relativism.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William L. Langenfus (1988). A Problem for Harman's Moral Relativism. Philosophy Research Archives 14:121-136.
Charles Sayward (1988). System Relativism. Ratio 1 (2):163-175.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1985). Is Moral Relativism Consistent? Analysis 45 (1):40-44.
James Beebe (2010). Moral Relativism in Context. Noûs 44 (4):691-724.
Torbjörn Tännsjö (2007). Moral Relativism. Philosophical Studies 135 (2):123 - 143.
Steven D. Hales (1997). A Consistent Relativism. Mind 106 (421):33-52.
Hugh LaFollette (1991). The Truth in Ethical Relativism. Journal of Social Philosophy 22 (1):146-154.
Ragnar Francén (2007). Metaethical Relativism: Against the Single Analysis Assumption. Dissertation, University of Gothenburg
Berit Brogaard (2008). Moral Contextualism and Moral Relativism. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (232):385 - 409.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #58,714 of 1,699,567 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #128,702 of 1,699,567 )
How can I increase my downloads?