Abstract

This is an impressive book containing noteworthy and challenging contributions to meta-ethics, especially in presenting a powerful case for a version of moral relativism based on recent developments in the philosophy of language. The main thesis on moral relativity denies that there is "a single true morality." Much of the argument centers on the relevance of truth-condition semantics and the causal and descriptive theories of reference. In this light, relativist analyses are proposed for "A ought to do X" and "X is a good Y" statements. These analyses are preceded by an extensive discussion of the notion of moral truth in light of works of Alfred Tarski and Donald Davidson, and the relativist analyses of morality as a social creation represented in some writings of Gilbert Harman and Hector-Neri Castañeda. It is recommended that the moral "A ought to do X" statement be analyzed as "By not doing X under certain actual conditions C, A will be breaking a rule of an adequate moral system applying to him or her," and the "X is a good Y" statement in terms of "Under certain conditions C, X satisfies the appropriate standards for Y's." Moral goodness is a special case and derivative from the general use "X satisfies the appropriate moral standards for Y's when these standards are derived from the adequate moral system applying to X." These analyses are clarified and defended against the Absolutist objections and alternative proposals, and followed by a defense "of the principle of the best explanation" as a guiding maxim for translating moral language and as "the method for explaining diversity and disagreement in moral beliefs."