One problem that the relativist has is accounting for moral beliefs.  When Suzy says, “I think capital punishment is wrong,” on cultural ethical relativism she is saying that abortion is wrong just for her culture.  But, this doesn’t seem right – it seems that her view is broader than her culture. Same problem for a subjective moral relativist like Bart.  When he says, “kicking puppies is wrong!” he is, on his view, simply talking about himself.  But, it seems that he really does intend to say that this is a wrong thing for all people to do–not just him.

Objections to Natural Law Theory:  American Progressive Philosophers Which is NOT one of the reasons given by modern Progressives against Natural Law Theory (which interferes with their goal of a large, central government).   

American Political Philosophy  In 1991, during his confirmation hearings in the Senate, Clarence Thomas was attacked (and shamed) for being a ___________________ by some senators.  Nevertheless, Thomas became the second African American SCOTUS justice confirmed.   

In Chapter 2 of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill said that everyone must study the arguments against his views more than the arguments for his views.  Why?  We are in danger in not having the truth, and learning arguments against our views is the best “seat belt” against believing falsehoods.   . When it comes to Marxism, even free market capitalists can find things in Marx they agree with (even if they offer different solutions to the problems).  

Progressive American President, Woodrow Wilson, regularly attacked the Declaration of Independence in 4th of July speeches as President of Princeton University and President of the USA.  Conservative President, ______________________, seemingly reacted to Wilson’s dismissal of the Declaration of Independence with this speech (and argue against the political philosophy of future Progressives in both Democrat and Republican parties in 2017):   Φ We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. ….  It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them. … When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature’s God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say “The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven.” No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit. …  A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if it roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man – these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause. … About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers. … No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

American History: Natural Law Theorists vs. Statists (large government philosophers) Natural Law Theorists emphasize that we should not talk about how much money individuals ___________, but in terms of individual rights and the freedom to make as much money as you want and save, invest, give away, or spend it on whatever you want.    . Progressive-Statists and Marxist (socialists and communists) and Democratic Socialists disagree and say we should talk in terms of __________ and not individual liberty and freedom in order to help the poor in society by government taxing the rich and redistributing their wealth to the poor.  They believe that government should intervene because individuals cannot be trusted with their money. 

A lot of college students adopt moral relativism because they find this view to be more _________________  than other theories.  One problem with this reasoning is that _______________ might not be a virtue shared by any moral culture in the world–intolerance might be the primary virtue of every society.  In that case, it is unreasonable to use _____________ as a criterion for accepting relativism.   

On the basis of subjectivism, Adolf Hitler, Ted Bundy, Osama bin Laden, and Jeffrey Dahmer could be considered as moral as Mother Theresa of Calcutta because each of those four lived by their own moral standards (beliefs of right and wrong).

History of Natural Law Theory Φ “True law is right reason in agreement with nature:  it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.  And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked – We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it.  And there will not be different laws of Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.  Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he still suffers the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment . . . (De Re Publica, III, xxii) ” Φ Which philosopher said this? 

If 51% of an Islamist (political Islamic) culture thinks it is morally correct to execute adulterous women, people who engage in same-sex sexual activity, and practice FGM, then people who adhere to this form of moral relativism say it is morally right for members of this culture to encourage FGM in young girls, execute adulterers and execute people who engage in same-sex sexual activity.