There
is another way to think about "foundations" for morals and
why people think that ethical relativism implies an absence of
foundations.
We said before that relativism can be thought of as an
epistemological thesis, a metaphysical thesis, or a linguistic thesis.
The metaphysical thesis claims that moral evaluations are not part of
the basic furniture of the universe. Instead, moral evaluations are
created by people or added to the universe by people.
As a result, someone might say, there is nothing 'out there' for
moral evaluations or principles to correspond to or to describe or to
be checked against. And it is the absence of this reality that leaves us without foundations for ethics.
I would like to say that I am uncertain about this. I'm not sure
whether there is something objective to check our moral principles
against. I'm just not sure. What would "ultimate reality"
have to be like in order to provide a foundation for ethics?