Cultural Relativism and Ethics: A Critical Analysis

Challenges to the Study of Ethics and Moral Reasoning

1. Cultural relativism is often presented as a challenge to the study of ethics and the validity of moral reasoning. What is this challenge? Rachels and Midgley provide a critique of the claims of cultural relativism and in lecture/lecture notes I have supplemented this critique with further considerations. Defend the cultural relativist thesis or at least show why Rachels and/or Midgley are unconvincing. After presenting the various critiques [due to space you should limit yourself to what you consider to be the strongest critiques of the cultural relativist position] argue that such alleged refutations ultimately fail to be persuasive.
2. What is the fundamental argument against relativism that Charles Taylor advances which allows for transcendental and trans-historical judgments of rationality? How is this meant as a response to the relativist who claims that all such judgments simply begs the question in favour of one=s own criteria of success?
3. What is Mill’s version of utilitarianism? What is the nature of morality according to Mill? What are some of the complaints regarding utilitarian thought that Mill considers and defends utilitarianism against? What is the difference between “act” and “rule” utilitarianism? Are there any problems with this as a moral theory? Are you convinced by utilitarianism?
4. Nagel in "Right and Wrong" considers it to be logically inconsistent, incoherent and thus irrational to deny the universality of morality and moral reasoning. What is his argument supporting the moral point of view? Do you agree? Nagel is one attempt to anchor the objectivity and justification of morality. What do you think of this project? For example, are you a “moral realist”? Why or why not?