Moral Relativism: Are There Moral Truths?

This video provides a (very) brief overview of cultural relativism, two arguments in its favor, and several objections against it. Much of the presentation is based on James Rachels' essay, "Morality is Not Relative."
The video begins with an overview of my Introduction to Bioethics course, so the discussion of cultural relativism starts at 3:20.
The video also builds on my previous video, "What is Philosophy?": • What is Philosophy? (a...
______
Music used for the intro and outro is:
Track: When you Realize - Mauro Somm [Audio Library Release]
Music provided by Audio Library Plus
Watch: • When you Realize - Mau...
Free Download / Stream: alplus.io/when-you-realize

[@rodrigogomes3422]

A much needed video in the days we're living in. Good job, once again!

[@bioethicsondemand6258]

Thanks!

[@NOODLEDOC1]

Professor, I think you left out one option in the differences argument. No one can be right, and there still can be an objective moral truth.

[@gausulazamranju6133]

Wow, that's really amazing.

[@arangelrb]

Thanks 😀

[@muskduh]

Great thanks

[@tofaelnuruddin7815]

There are at least two objections that undermine the response to the differences argument:
1. The analogy between differences in notions of right and wrong and differences on the shape of the Earth is a false analogy, as the first is not empirically verifiable while the latter is, facilitating the task at least somewhat to arrive at an objective truth.
2. While the response provides a negative argument as to why differences do not necessitate the lack of an objective truth, it does not provide a positive argument as to how to determine a metaethical method to arrive to the objective moral truth.

[@therationallion]

Came here to say this as well. Did he ever respond?

[@martin-jg2ru]

Can you answer: Why should we care about logic and reason?

[@therationallion]

Just to play devils advocate here...
If moral relativism asserts that there is no right or wrong, does it not follow that there is also no good or bad?
If so, then I would imagine that a relativistic worldview would not assert that tolerance is good or bad, only that it is preferable to intolerance.
This stuff seems to always devolve into arguments over definitions of "good" and "bad".

[@MulMed-uy1uh]

either preferability reduces to goodness or it doesn't. if it does, then the relativist is seemingly committed to saying there's something objectively good and so is self-undermining. if it does not, then the relativist is seemingly just giving us a statement of her own likes (or dislikes) and so carries no weight. either way, no one need take the relativist's concerns seriously.