In class we discussed relativism. We primarily talked about life situations and how to apply relativism. Boghossian’s argument for relativism is a different perspective than what we have discussed previously in class. Boghossian’s argument stems from the three terms moral relativism, moral absolutism and moral nihilism. In all three of these terms Boghossian is able to touch upon the fact that all of them are able to argue right and wrong, each in their own way. Moral relativism is the idea that an action cannot be right or wrong within itself, but depending on who is perceiving it. Something could be wrong to one person; however it could be right to another. Moral absolutism states that there are both actions that are right and wrong, which do not depend on opinion or perspective. Moral nihilism argues that there are actions that are right and wrong, to which one cannot argue. Boghossians arguments have influenced the way we think about relativism, they can give another perspective to an already examined philosophical idea.
Boghossian argues moral relativism and incoherency in his paper. He begins to contrast two, distinctly, different events in history. He discusses the Salem witch hunt and explains that when the world decided that witches were not real, we decided to give up witch talk all together, rather than becoming relativists about it. There is no question recognizing that witches are not real, however there is with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory of relativity taught us that “there was no such thing as the absolute simultaneity of two events.”
Rather that we become relativists about simultaneity, which explains that simultaneity is only relative to certain aspects of life, and not to others.
Moral Relativism can be perceived as a multitude of things, Boghissian perceives it as incoherent. The incoherency of Moral Relativism comes from the idea that there isn’t a definite answer to it. Boghissian then begins to elaborate on this idea, by discussing the simultaneity case and the witch case. He argues that in Einstein’s case, yes, he was able to scientifically argue that simultaneity wasn’t proved, however Einstein was able to defend that it does contain a relativistic cousin, which is relative to a frame of reference. One cannot be explained however there is a supplementary definition. The witch case is described differently, since the witch case was deemed not real, there is not a relativistic cousin, and this doesn’t affect our world today. Which Boghissian is then able to argue that moral relativism is incoherent because there is a multitude of reasons, based upon his own, that can be deemed right or wrong.
Boghissian’s argument that moral relativism is incoherent can be viewed another way, according to Boghissian. He begins to argue etiquette and the coherency of moral relativism after all. Is eating beef okay? According to the moral code of the Hindus eating beef isn’t right. However according to other societal codes eating beef is okay, such as the Jewish Kosher laws. Boghissians argument is an important factor to how we view the world. Eating beef in some cultures is not okay, however in others it is encouraged. Boghissian argues that it is coherent when it is applied to the right situation and incoherent when applied to other situations.
Etiquette, when being applied to coherency, is correct; yes, we will adapt our eating behaviors to be respectful of the host, however Boghissian begins to argue that this doesn’t apply to moral relativism. Etiquette does not relate to moral facts, rather moral norms, it doesn’t apply to moral relativism and its coherency.
The argument of incoherency in moral relativism can be viewed from many different, and valid, perspectives. Boghissian is able to argue the incoherency to a multitude of levels using moral relativism itself, moral absolutism and moral nihilism. . Boghossians arguments have influenced the way we think about relativism, they can give another perspective to an already examined philosophical idea.