We started out with three broad questions:

1. What are the reasons for accepting or rejecting ethical relativism as a meta-ethical theory?
2. What are the main alternatives to ethical relativism?
3. What are the reasons for accepting or rejecting the main alternatives?

Ann pointed out that the analysis we use for statements like "X is good" makes a difference for some of our issues. We used an analysis from the philosopher David Wong.

John suggested that people often back into ethical relativism because other alternatives seem to fail. In particular, many people believe that attempts to prove or support ethical principles on the basis of science, metaphysics, conceptual analysis, and theology have all failed. To put it differently, they believe that attempts to put ethics on an objective basis have failed.

We talked a little about science as a basis for ethics and about two theories that attempt to prove ethical principles on the basis of what might be called conceptual analysis. All of these approaches have problems and none has attracted widespread support from moral philosophers.

Ayesha made an interesting point. She said that ethical principles may not be the sort of thing that can be true or false; but they can be chosen on other grounds. I think that may be a good insight.

And finally, John made a useful suggestion. He pointed out that Wong believes that even relativistic ethical systems can have some of the characteristics of an objective morality. Objectivity may not be an all-or-nothing feature of ethics. I think that's a good point for you to think about for next week when we discuss ethical knowledge. Perhaps half a loaf is better than none.

In our next session we are going to assume that some form of ethical relativism is a correct theory and ask about its implications. I'll see you then.