FRESHMAN SEMINAR IN PHILOSOPHY: RELATIVISM

PHIL 150W, Sec. 01: TTh 9:30am-10:50am in Blair 142
PHIL 150W, Sec. 02: TTh 11am-12:20pm in Blair 142
The College of William and Mary
Spring 2003

Instructor: James Woodbridge
email address: jawoo2@wm.edu
Course Webpage: http://fsweb.wm.edu/jawoo2/wm/150w.htm
Office Hours: T 3:30pm-5pm, W 10:30am-12pm, and by appointment
Office: 126 Blair Hall
Office Phone: 221-2713
Dept. Phone: 221-2735

 

SECOND PAPER ASSIGNMENT

In "The Challenge of Moral Relativism," James Rachels argues against moral relativism by attempting to establish the necessity, and thus universality, of certain moral principles. Further readings exhibit two types of relativist reply to this sort of objection. The first--call it the "strong reply"--can be seen in the version of moral relativism developed by Gilbert Harman in "Is There a Single True Morality?" (MR, pp. 165-184). There Harman offers reasons for accepting relativism and rejecting what he calls "absolute values". The second sort of reply--call it the "moderate reply"--can be seen in the version of moral relativism developed by Philippa Foot in "Moral Relativism" (MR, pp. 185-198) and elaborated further by Thomas Scanlon in "Fear of Relativism" (MR, pp. 142-162--Note: this article can also be of use in understanding aspects of Harman's view). Foot appears both to accept certain necessary ("definitional") restrictions on the standards backing moral judgments and at the same time to embrace a kind of relativism regarding moral judgments.

Your task is write a 4-6 page paper explaining and assessing one or the other of these two replies to the claim that certain moral principles are necessary. In either case, begin with a brief explanation of moral relativism and of the sort of objection Rachels offers (MR, pp. 59-61). Your most important task in both paper options is to explain as clearly as you can and in your own words, how the version of relativism you consider responds to this sort of universalist critique. Be sure you specify all of the steps in any argument(s) you consider. Keep in mind that you are explaining arguments (i.e., talking about them), not giving them yourself. After you have explained how your chosen version of relativism responds, evaluate the response you have explained. Does the relativist position hold up to critical scrutiny (at all, or as a genuinely relativist position)? Is any sort of universalism more plausible? Why or why not?

Be sure to look at my Paper Requirements and Policies.

Keep your paper within the page limit!

Your paper is due in my mailbox at the Philosophy Dept. by 4pm, Friday, April 18th.