 polygamy, possibly by force. (After all, didn't I just say (for the purposes of this example) that I think polygamy is objectively morally wrong?) By contrast, a moral relativist could be able to argue that Beth and I are both right: that polygamy is morally wrong for me (relative to my culture) but morally permissible for Beth (relative to hers). Moral relativism therefore seems to offer a more tolerant, 'live and let live' approach to these kinds of disagreements. Indeed, moral relativism arose in Europe partly as a reaction to an earlier colonial perspective, according to which the moral codes of other cultures were considered inferior to the supposedly correct moral attitudes of the Europeans, and therefore in need of changing (if necessary, at gunpoint). In this context, moral relativism played an important antiImperialist role by denying that any one culture was inherently better than any other. But you don't need to be a moral relativist to be able to challenge these sorts of racist colonial attitudes. I can think that I'm correct about polygamy, and that Beth is wrong, without thinking that I therefore have any right to impose my views on her against her will. For instance, I might think that in addition to telling us that polygamy is morally wrong, objective morality also tells us 6 that we must tolerate and respect other people and their cultures. Put differently: the problem with the forcible imposition of European values on other cultures might be that it is intolerant and disrespectful and coercive and unjust-where these are objective moral facts about colonialism. What's more, moral relativism can actually make it more difficult to criticise these sorts of colonial attitudes. That's because most 19th Century Europeans believed that they were justified in imposing their'superior' values onto their 'backward' colonial subjects. So, relative to their culture, it was right for them to do this. Far from helping to show what's wrong with forcibly imposing your views on someone else, therefore, moral relativism can end up justifying it. This suggests that in order to condemn 19th Century European colonial attitudes, we need to do so from outside 19th Century European culture-and that, in turn, suggests again that we may need some kind of objective moral standard. 4. Context Is Everything If morality isn't relative, it must be universal: instead of applying only to certain people in certain places at certain times, moral truths must apply to all people in all places at all times. But,
polygamy, possibly by force. (After all, didn't I just suppose (for the determination of this example) that I think polygamy is objectively morally wrong ?) By line, a moral relativist could be able to argue that Beth and I are both right: that polygamy is morally wrong for me (relative to my acculturation) but morally permissible for Beth (relative to hers). Moral relativism therefore look to offer a more tolerant,' be and let live' approach path to these kind of disagreements. Indeed, moral relativism arose in Europe partially as a reaction to an early colonial perspective, according to which the moral codes of other culture were considered inferior to the supposedly correct moral attitude of the Europeans, and therefore in need of changing (if necessary, at gunpoint). In this context, moral relativism played an authoritative antiImperialist role by denying that any one culture was inherently better than any other. But you don't need to be a moral relativist to be able to challenge these sorts of racist colonial attitudes. I can think that I'm correct about polygamy, and that Beth is wrong, without thinking that I therefore have any right to impose my views on her against her volition. For case, I might think that in summation to tell us that polygamy is morally wrong, objective morality also tell us 6 that we must tolerate and respect other people and their cultures. place differently: the problem with the forcible imposition of European values on other cultures might be that it is intolerant and disrespectful and coercive and inequitable - where these are objective moral facts about colonialism. What's more, moral relativism can actually make it more difficult to criticise these sort of colonial attitudes. That's because most nineteenth Century Europeans believe that they were justified in imposing their'superior' values onto their' backward' colonial subjects. So, relative to their culture, it was proper for them to do this. Far from helping to show what's wrong with forcibly inflict your views on someone else, therefore, moral relativism can end up justify it. This suggests that in ordering to condemn nineteenth Century European colonial attitudes, we necessitate to do so from away 19th Century European polish - and that, in turn, suggests again that we may need some kind of objective moral standard. 4. Context Is Everything If morality isn't relative, it must be universal: instead of applying merely to certain people in sealed places at certain times, moral truths must apply to all people in all places at all clock time. But,
 popygamy, possibly by force. (After all, didn'j U just say (fkr the pjrposes of this example) that I thinj polygamy is objectivdly moralpy wrong?) By rontrast, a moral relativlft ckmld bz eble to argue tmat Beth ang I are both rhgft: that polygamy is morally wrong for me (relstlve to my cultore) blt morzlly permissible for Beth (relative to herv). Moral relatovism therefore seems to ovfer a more tolerant, 'llve and let livq' approach to these kinds of disagrgements. Indeed, moral relativism xrose in Europe pqrtpi as a reactmon to an earlier gplonian persprctive, accordikg to whuch the moral codes oh other cultures werg considerad inferior to the wupposegly worrdxt oorzl aftitudfs kf the Eurkpeans, and rherefore in need og syanging (if nedessarr, wt gunpoint). In this context, moral relatpvisj played an important abtiImperialist role bi denying ehat any one culture was inherently better than aty otief. Bbb hiu don't need to be a moral relativist to be ablq tp bhallenge these sjrts of racosh vjlonial attitodes. I ezn think that I'm corgect abjut pilygamy, agd tnat Beth is wrong, without tyinking that U therefore have auy right to nmpose my voews on her against her wilm. For instajce, I miggg think that in xddptiot to telling us that polygwmy is mocally wrong, ubjevtive iorality apso tcnls us 6 that we mudt topesate and rfspect other people and their cnktures. Put dofxervntly: the probkem with the sorcible imposntion of Eurooean valuea on otier cultures might be thad it is intolxrant and diseespwctful xvd coercive anc unjust-wktre these qre objective morak fxdts about colonnclusm. What's more, korxl wepavivisi can actuallf maye ky mord difficult go ctiticise these sorts of dolonial attitudes. Tmat's becaose most 19eh Century Eutopeans believed tjat tiey wece jusyifyed in imposing their'superior' balues onho bheir 'backwarq' cooonial subjeets. So, relative to their culture, it was cight for them to do thus. Far from helping uo show what's wrond with foscibly imposing your views on someone else, therefore, moral relathvism can end up justifying it. This suggests that in order to condemn 19th Centuey European colonizl aytitugef, we neqd tl do so from outspde 19th Century European culture-aid that, in tbrn, suggests again that we mau veed some kina of objective moral stahdard. 4. Cpntext Is Everything If moralitu isn't relative, it must ne univerwal: ihstead of epplying only to ceryain pzople un certqin ilaces at certxin tlmes, moral truuhs just apply to all people in all places ah all times. But,
polygamy, possibly by force. (After all, didn't say the purposes this example) that morally By contrast, a relativist could be to argue that Beth and I both right: that polygamy is morally wrong for me (relative to my culture) morally permissible for Beth (relative to hers). Moral relativism therefore seems to offer more 'live let approach to these kinds of disagreements. Indeed, moral relativism arose in Europe partly as a reaction an earlier colonial perspective, according to which the codes of other cultures considered inferior to the supposedly moral of the and in of changing (if at gunpoint). In this context, moral relativism played an important antiImperialist role by denying that any one was inherently any other. you need be a moral be able to challenge these sorts attitudes. I can think that I'm correct about and that is wrong, without thinking that I have any right to impose my views on against her will. For instance, I might think that in addition to telling us that morally wrong, objective morality tells us 6 we tolerate respect people and cultures. Put differently: the problem with the forcible imposition of European on other cultures might be that it is intolerant and coercive unjust-where these are moral facts about colonialism. more, relativism can actually make difficult criticise colonial That's most 19th Century Europeans that they were justified in their'superior' values onto their to their culture, it was right for them do this. Far from helping to show wrong with forcibly imposing your views on someone else, therefore, moral relativism end up This suggests that in order to condemn 19th European colonial attitudes, we to do so from outside 19th Century European culture-and in suggests again we may need kind of objective standard. 4. Context If morality relative, must of applying only to certain people certain at certain times, moral truths apply people in all places at all times. But,
 polygamy, possibly by force. (AfTer all, didn'T I jusT saY (foR tHe puRposEs of this examplE) That i think polygamy is objectIvely MoRAlly WRoNg?) By cOntrast, A MoRAL reLaTiVisT cOUlD be abLe tO argue tHat Beth and i arE bOth right: that POlYgamy is morAllY wrong for me (rElaTive to My CulTUre) buT moRally PermisSIble foR Beth (relaTiVE to herS). moral reLATiVism Therefore seems to oFFeR A more tolerant, 'lIve and LeT LiVE' AppRoaCh to these kInDs of dISagreemENtS. iNDeeD, Moral relativiSm arose in EuROpe Partly As A reACtion tO an eaRlIEr cOlonial persPectIve, accordIng to wHIch the mORal codeS of othEr cUltUres WErE cOnsIdERed INfEriOR to The suppoSeDlY corrEct mORAL AttiTudEs of The EuRopeans, and theRefOre iN NeeD of chAnginG (if nEcEssarY, at gunPoint). in This context, moraL relAtivism plAyeD aN imPoRtant ANtiImpEriAliSt role bY denyinG ThaT aNY ONe Culture was inherentLy BETtEr than anY other. bUt YoU Don't need To Be a MoraL RElatiVist TO bE able to cHallenGE tHeSe sorts Of Racist CoLonIal AttitUDes. I Can thiNk that I'm CorreCT about polygamy, ANd that Beth is wROnG, WItHOut tHinKing that I thErefORe haVe anY RiGht TO impoSe my vIeWS oN Her against her will. FoR iNstancE, I migHt think that in Addition to TELLing us thAt poLYgAMy is morally wroNg, objEctive moraLIty also tElls uS 6 that we mUst toleraTE And respeCt oTheR peOplE ANd Their cultures. pUT difFeRently: tHe pRoblem wIth The ForCibLe ImpositioN of EuropEaN vAlUeS on Other CUltures mIgHt bE tHat It is iNToleraNt and DisrEsPeCTfuL and coeRCiVE And uNjUsT-wheRe tHeSe are ObjeCTivE moral fActs about ColONialIsM. WHat's morE, moral relativIsM can actualLy MakE it morE DIfficult To criticise these sorts of COlonial AttItudeS. ThaT's because MosT 19th CenTurY europeAns belIeved ThAt tHEY were JUStIfiEd In imposing THEir'SuperIoR' valUes onto Their 'backward' colonIAl sUbjects. So, relaTivE to tHEIr CulTUrE, It wAs RIghT FOr them to do this. FAr from helpInG To Show what's wROng WiTh forciBly impoSing yOUr views On someone Else, thereFoRe, moRAL reLativism caN end up juStifying iT. this sUGgEsts tHat In ordeR tO coNdemn 19Th CentURy EUropeAn coloNiAl attiTudes, We Need to do So from outside 19th Century EUropeaN cultUre-And that, in TurN, SugGests agaiN thaT we may need SomE kiNd of oBjeCTive mOral STaNdaRD. 4. ContExt IS everythinG if MorALItY isn't relatiVE, IT muSt be uNivERsal: inSteaD of applying only to CErtain people in CertAIN plAceS At ceRtAin times, moral tRutHs MUSt apply tO aLl people in aLl places At ALl timEs. But,
 polygamy, possibly by for ce. (After  all,  di dn' tI ju st s ay (for the pu r pose s of this example) tha t I t hi n k po l yg amy i s objec t iv e l y m or al lywr o ng ?) By  co ntrast,  a moral r ela ti vist could b e  a ble to arg uethat Beth an d I  are b ot h r i ght:tha t pol ygamyi s mora lly wrong  f o r me ( r elative t omy c ulture) but moral l yp ermissible for  Beth(r e la t i vetohers). Mor al  rela t ivism t h er e f o res eems to offer  a more tol e ran t, 'li ve  an d  let l ive'ap p roa ch to these  kin ds of dis agreem e nts. In d eed, mo ral re lat ivi sm a r os einEu r ope pa rtl y  as  a react io nto an  ear l i e r  col oni al p erspe ctive, accord ing  tow hic h the  mora l co de s ofothercultu re s were consider ed i nferior t o t he  su pp osedl y  corre ctmor al atti tudes o f  th eE u r op eans, and therefor ei n  n eed of c hangin g  ( if necessar y,  at  gun p o int).  Int hi s contex t, mor a lre lativis mplayed  a n i mpo rtant anti Imperi alist ro le by denying that a n y one culture wa s in h eren tly  better tha n an y  oth er.B ut  yo u  don' t nee dt ob e a moral relativis tto beableto challengethese sort s o f racist  col o ni a l attitudes. I  canthink that I'm corr ect a bout pol ygamy, an d that Bet h i s w ron g,w i th out thinkingt h at I  t herefor e h ave any  ri ght  to  im po se my vie ws on he rag ai ns t h er wi l l. For i ns tan ce , I  migh t  think  that  inad di t ion  to tel l in g us t ha tpoly gam yis mo rall y  wr ong, ob jective m ora l ityal so  tellsus 6 that wemu st tolerat eand  respe c t  other p eople and their culture s . Put d iff erent ly:the probl emwith t hef orcibl e impo sitio nofE u ropea n va lue son other c u l tur es mi gh t be  that i t is intolerant an d  di srespectful a ndcoer c i ve  an d  u n jus t- w her e these are objec tive moral  f a ct s about co l oni al ism. Wh at's mo re, m o ral rel ativism c an actual ly  mak e itmore diffi cult tocriticise these so rts o f c olonia latt itude s. Tha t 'sbecau se mos t19th C entur yEuropean s believed that they we re jus tifie d i n imposin g t h eir 'superior ' va lues ontothe ir'back war d ' col onia l  s ubj e cts.So,r elative t o  t hei r cu lture, it w a s rig ht fo r t h em todo t his. Far from hel p ing to show wh at's w ron g w i th f or cibly imposing  yo ur v iews onso meone else,  therefo re ,  mora l rela tivism  can en d up justif ying  it . This su gge st s  that i nor d er tocond em n 19th  Centu r y Eu r o pean colonial at titud e s , wen eed  to d oso from outs ide 19th C entury Euro pean c ultu re-an d that,  i n turn , s ug gests agai n  that wemay n eed som ekind  of  objec tive m oralstan da rd.  4. Conte x t  I s  E ve r yth ingIf mo ra lity  isn't re l ative, i t m u st be u ni ver s a l: ins t ea d of applyin g o nly t o certain pe o plei nc ertai n plac es atcertain tim es , moral  tr u t hs must a pply to a l l p eo plein all p la cesat  al ltimes. But,
 polygamy,_possibly by_force. (After all, didn't_I just_say_(for the_purposes_of this example)_that I think_polygamy is objectively morally_wrong?) By contrast,_a_moral relativist could be able to argue that Beth and I are both right:_that_polygamy is_morally_wrong_for me (relative to my_culture) but morally permissible for_Beth (relative_to hers). Moral relativism therefore seems to offer_a_more tolerant, 'live_and let live' approach to these kinds of disagreements._Indeed, moral relativism arose in Europe_partly as a_reaction_to_an earlier colonial perspective,_according to which the moral codes_of other cultures were considered inferior_to the supposedly correct moral attitudes of_the Europeans, and therefore in need_of changing (if necessary, at_gunpoint). In_this context, moral relativism played_an important antiImperialist_role by_denying that any_one culture was inherently better than_any other. But_you don't need to be a_moral_relativist to be_able_to_challenge these_sorts of racist_colonial_attitudes. I_can_think that I'm correct about polygamy,_and_that Beth is wrong, without thinking that_I therefore have any_right_to impose my views_on her against her will._For instance, I might think that_in addition_to telling_us that polygamy is morally wrong, objective morality also tells us_6 that we must tolerate and_respect other people and_their cultures._Put_differently: the problem_with_the forcible_imposition of European values on other cultures_might be_that it is intolerant and disrespectful_and coercive and unjust-where_these_are objective moral facts about colonialism._What's more, moral relativism can actually_make it more difficult to_criticise_these_sorts of colonial attitudes. That's_because most 19th Century Europeans believed_that they were_justified in imposing their'superior' values onto their_'backward'_colonial subjects. So, relative to their_culture,_it was right for them to_do_this._Far from helping to show_what's wrong with forcibly imposing your_views on someone else, therefore, moral relativism can end_up justifying it._This suggests that in order_to_condemn_19th Century European colonial attitudes, we need to do so_from outside_19th Century European_culture-and that, in turn, suggests again that we may need_some kind of objective moral standard. 4._Context Is Everything If morality isn't relative, it must be universal:_instead of applying only to certain people in_certain places at certain times, moral truths_must apply to all_people_in all places at all times. But,