Consider this argument:
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no “objective” truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
Rachels refers to this argument as the Cultural Differences Argument (16). In your paper, answer the following questions about it.
First, Rachels says that, while it is true that different cultures have different moral codes, “it is easy to overestimate the extent of those differences. Often, when we examine what seems to be a dramatic difference, we find that the cultures do not differ nearly as much as it appears” (19). He suggests that, insofar as we disagree with each other about morality, our disagreements tend to not be particularly deep; that we largely share the same fundamental values. Why does he say that? Do you think he is right about that? Why or why not?
Second, Rachels claims that the Cultural Differences Argument is not sound (16). Why does Rachels think that this argument is not sound? Is he right that it is not sound?
Finally, let’s suppose for the moment that Rachels is correct that the Cultural Differences Argument fails to establish that there are no objective truths about morality. It might still be correct to say that there are no objective truths about morality—the Cultural Differences Argument just doesn’t do a good job proving it. Is it correct to say that there are no objective truths about morality? If so, why?
APA 580 words