Philosopher: Ethical relativism, the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint, such as that of a culture or historical period, is untenable. If ethical relativism were true, then any moral judgment, no matter how abhorrent, would be considered 'true' within its own context, making moral progress or critique impossible. But moral progress is evident throughout history. The philosopher's argument proceeds by:
- AAppealing to the emotional consequences of accepting ethical relativism.
- BArguing that ethical relativism is based on a flawed understanding of morality.
- CDemonstrating that ethical relativism leads to a contradiction.
- DShowing that an implication of ethical relativism is incompatible with an accepted fact.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Showing that an implication of ethical relativism is incompatible with an accepted fact.
The philosopher outlines an implication of ethical relativism ('any moral judgment... would be considered true... making moral progress or critique impossible'). Then, this implication is contrasted with a widely accepted fact ('moral progress is evident throughout history'). The argument concludes that since the implication of relativism contradicts a known fact, relativism itself must be false.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. While terms like 'abhorrent' might evoke emotion, the core of the argument is logical incompatibility, not an appeal to emotional consequences (like 'this would make us feel bad').
- B. The argument doesn't explicitly claim a flawed understanding; rather, it challenges the consequences of the theory itself.
- C. The argument doesn't show an internal contradiction within ethical relativism; it shows relativism's *implications* contradict an external reality.
Argument by Reductio ad Absurdum (Indirect Proof)
A method of argument where one assumes a claim to be true, derives a logical consequence from it, and then shows that this consequence is absurd or contradictory to a known fact, thereby proving the original claim false.
- Assumes the opposite of what's being proven
- Derives a contradiction or absurdity
- Concludes the original assumption must be false
Memory trick: Show it's silly, then it can't be true!