Let me try to formalize Ayesha's argument. It seems to me that the argument might go something like this:

• Different cultures have different moral codes.
• There is no way to prove that any one moral code is superior to the others.
• Therefore, all codes are on the same level and are "equally valid." Each code is binding within, but not beyond, the culture of which it is a part.
• Since all codes are equally valid, we should be tolerant and respectful of the different codes.

I don't want you to appraise this argument just now. Instead, I want to ask what questions it raises? I can think of one right off as an example:

• Does the difference in moral codes matter for ethics or meta-ethics? Let's say we were talking about geography and someone said that different cultures around the world had different pictures of the shape of the earth. Would anything of interest follow from that? Wouldn't we just say "Well, most of them are wrong!"?

What other questions does this argument raise?

John, I wonder if you could keep a list of the questions, OK?