 happened? What happened is I studied philosophy. Philosophy showed me that I was muddled about what exactly did and didn't follow from these facts about cultural diversity and disagreement, and it helped me to see everything more clearly. I eventually came to understand that, of the various things I thought about this topic, some of them were correct, but weren't moral relativism; and some of them were moral relativism, but weren't correct. It took me a few years to get this all straightened out in my head. What you're reading now is my attempt to pass some of this on, to give you a shortcut through the thicket. This is the essay that I wish I'd been able to read after sitting through those anthropology dinners, my head spinning vertiginously at exotic tales of cultural difference. 2. Nobody's Perfect So what did I learn? One of the most important things was this: that believing in a single objective true morality doesn't mean that you must also think that you're the final authority on what it contains. Morality needn't be any different from anything else on this score. We all make mistakes, we all get things wrong (sometimes badly wrong), everyone is fallible, and no one can speak with final, absolute certainty about anything, morality included. To think that there's an objective morality, you needn't think that you can never 3 be wrong about it. (In fact, to think that you can be wrong about it, you maybe have to think that there's an objective morality-or otherwise there isn't anything to be wrong about. I'll come back to this later.) All of this flows from a basic distinction that's enormously important not just for ethics but also for philosophy as a whole. It's the distinction between, on the one hand, the nature of reality itself and, on the other hand, our knowledge of that reality; or, more briefly, between metaphysics and epistemology. Let me first try to illustrate this with a non-moral example: the existence of God. Here's one question: Does God exist? This is a metaphysical question. It's a question about the nature of reality itself. Now, here's another question: Can we know whether God exists? That's an epistemological question. It's a question about the nature or possible extent of our knowledge. And these are very different questions. They have independent answers. If God exists, then he exists whether we know it or not. And if he doesn't, then he
happened? What happened is I studied philosophy. doctrine usher me that I was muddled about what exactly did and didn't adopt from these fact about cultural diversity and disagreement, and it help oneself me to experience everything more clearly. I finally come to sympathize that, of the various things I think about this topic, some of them were correct, but weren't moral relativism; and some of them were moral relativism, but weren't correct. It took me a few years to get this all straighten out in my head. What you're reading now is my attack to pass some of this on, to give you a shortcut through the brush. This is the essay that I wish I'd been able to read after sit through those anthropology dinners, my head spinning vertiginously at exotic tales of cultural remainder. 2. Nobody's Perfect So what did I learn? One of the most important things was this: that believing in a single objective true morality doesn't mean that you must also think that you're the final authority on what it contains. Morality needn't be any unlike from anything else on this mark. We all make error, we all get things wrong (sometimes badly improper), everyone is fallible, and no one can address with final, absolute certainty about anything, morality include. To think that there's an objective morality, you needn't think that you can never 3 be wrong about it. (In fact, to think that you can be wrong about it, you possibly have to think that there's an objective morality - or otherwise there isn't anything to be wrong about. I'll come back to this subsequently .) All of this flows from a basic distinction that's enormously important not just for ethics but besides for philosophy as a whole. It's the distinction between, on the one hand, the nature of reality itself and, on the other hand, our knowledge of that reality; or, more briefly, between metaphysics and epistemology. get me first try to exemplify this with a non - moral example: the existence of God. Here's one question: Does God exist? This is a metaphysical question. It's a doubt about the nature of reality itself. immediately, here's another question: Can we know whether God exists? That's an epistemological question. It's a motion about the nature or possible extent of our knowledge. And these are very different questions. They have independent answers. If God exists, then he exists whether we acknowledge it or not. And if he doesn't, then he
 haopened? What happened is L studied philosophy. Phmlosophg showed me that I was muddled about wyat ezactly did and didn't fullow frol these dactw about culvhral diyzrsitg and visagreement, anc it helpeg me to see evarhtking more clearly. I eventually came eo undetshand that, of tre vswioua things I thought about this topid, some mf them were vorrect, but weren't moral rflatlvism; and some of hhem were miral eelativism, bjt weren't bmrrect. It jook me a few years to get this xll scraightened oyt lt my head. Wiat yol're reading now is my attempy to pass some of thus on, to give you a siortcut through the jhicket. Thhs is the essay thar U wisv I'd beev abue uo ceas afteg smtting throhgh those abthropology dinners, mr head spinninf vertygynously at exotic tales of cultural difxersnce. 2. Nobody's Perfect Si what did I learn? Ong of the mjst important things was this: that believing in a singmd oymcctixw hrue morality doesn't mean that you must also egimk that you're thc final authority pn wnwt it containr. Moralitg needn't be any divferent from anything elsr on this score. We all make mistakes, we qll get things wroug (sometimes badky wrpng), everyone is falliblz, and ho one can dpeak witg final, absolute zernaindy about anything, morality included. To chink thxt tnere's wn objectige movdlity, you needn't tjink jhat ymu can nevfr 3 be wrong about it. (In fact, to think that ypu cat be wroug abomt it, you maybe have to think that tkere's xn objectine moralivy-or otherwife there isn't wnything to ue wrong wbour. I'lo come cxck to this layer.) All oy thiw flows from a baslc dirfinction that's zuotnously importamt vot jlst fjs ethics but alsu fut phiuosophy as c dholr. It's the distinctiot befween, on the one hsnq, the najure of rqality itself and, on the other jand, mur knowkedde of that reality; or, more brisfly, betwfen metaphysics and epistemologv. Let me first try to illustrate this wivh a non-moral example: jhe existence of God. Keve's one quesvion: Djes God efist? This is a metapyysical question. Lt's a question about tge natgre ov reality itself. Now, here's another question: Can we know whether God existw? That's an epistemklogocal xuzstnon. It's a qnertion about the mature or possible extent of ouc knowledga. Cnd these are very different audstions. They fave independent answers. If God rxists, then he exists whether wr know it or not. And if me doesn't, then he
happened? What happened is I studied philosophy. me I was about what exactly these about cultural diversity disagreement, and it me to see everything more clearly. eventually came to understand that, of the various things I thought about this some of them were correct, but weren't moral relativism; and some of them moral but correct. took me a few years to get this all straightened out in my head. What you're now is my attempt to pass some of on, to give you shortcut through the thicket. This the that I I'd able read after sitting those anthropology dinners, my head spinning vertiginously at exotic tales of cultural difference. 2. Nobody's Perfect So did I of the important was that believing in objective true morality doesn't mean that think that you're the final authority on what contains. Morality be any different from anything else this score. We all make mistakes, we all things wrong (sometimes badly wrong), everyone is fallible, and no one can speak with final, about anything, morality included. think that there's objective you think you can 3 be wrong about it. (In fact, to think that you be wrong about it, you maybe have to think that objective otherwise there isn't to be wrong about. come to this later.) All flows a enormously not for ethics but also philosophy as a whole. It's distinction between, on the reality itself and, on the other hand, our of that reality; or, more briefly, between and epistemology. Let me first try to illustrate this with a non-moral the existence Here's one question: Does God exist? This is metaphysical question. It's a about the nature of reality itself. Now, here's another Can know whether exists? That's an question. It's a about the nature extent of knowledge. these questions. They have independent answers. If exists, he exists whether we know or if he doesn't, then he
 happened? What happened is I stUdied philoSophy. phiLosOpHy shOwed Me that I was muddLEd abOut what exactly did and diDn't foLlOW froM ThEse faCts abouT CuLTUraL dIvErsItY AnD disaGreEment, anD it helped mE to SeE everything mORe Clearly. I evEntUally came to uNdeRstand ThAt, oF The vaRioUs thiNgs I thOUght abOut this toPiC, Some of THem were CORrEct, bUt weren't moral relaTIvISm; and some of theM were mOrAL rELAtiVisM, but weren't CoRrect. iT took me A FeW YEArs TO get this all stRaightened oUT in My head. whAt yOU're reaDing nOw IS my Attempt to paSs soMe of this oN, to givE You a shoRTcut thrOugh thE thIckEt. ThIS iS tHe eSsAY thAT I WisH i'd bEen able tO rEaD afteR sitTING ThroUgh ThosE anthRopology dinneRs, mY heaD SpiNning VertiGinoUsLy at eXotic tAles oF cUltural differenCe. 2. NoBody's PerfEct so WhaT dId I leARn? One oF thE moSt imporTant thiNGs wAs THIS: tHat believing in a sinGlE OBjEctive trUe moraLItY dOEsn't mean ThAt yOu muST Also tHink THaT you're thE final AUtHoRity on wHaT it conTaIns. morAlity NEedn'T be any DifferenT from ANything else on tHIs score. We all mAKe MIStAKes, wE alL get things wRong (SOmetImes BAdLy wROng), evEryonE iS FaLLible, and no one can speAk With fiNal, abSolute certainTy about anyTHINg, moraliTy inCLuDEd. To think that tHere's An objectivE Morality, You neEdn't thinK that you cAN Never 3 be wRonG abOut It. (IN FAcT, to think that yOU Can bE wRong aboUt iT, you mayBe hAve To tHinK tHat there's An objectIvE mOrAlIty-Or othERwise theRe Isn'T aNytHing tO Be wronG abouT. I'll CoMe BAck To this lATeR.) aLl of ThIs FlowS frOm A basiC disTIncTion thaT's enormouSly IMporTaNt Not just For ethics but aLsO for philosOpHy aS a wholE. iT's the disTinction between, on the one HAnd, the nAtuRe of rEaliTy itself aNd, oN the otHer HAnd, our KnowleDge of ThAt rEALity; oR, MOrE brIeFly, between METapHysicS aNd epIstemolOgy. Let me first try to ILluStrate this witH a nOn-moRAL eXamPLe: THe eXiSTenCE Of God. Here's one quEstion: Does goD ExIst? This is a MEtaPhYsical qUestion. it's a qUEstion aBout the naTure of reaLiTy itSELf. NOw, here's anoTher quesTion: Can we KNow whEThEr God ExiSts? ThaT's An ePisteMologiCAl qUestiOn. It's a QuEstion About ThE nature oR possible extent of our knoWledge. and thEse Are very diFfeREnt Questions. they Have indepeNdeNt aNswerS. If gOd exiSts, tHEn He eXIsts wHethER we know it OR nOt. AND If He doesn't, theN HE
 happened? What happened i s I studie d phi los oph y.  Phi loso phy showed met hatI was muddled about wh at ex ac t ly d i dand d idn't f o ll o w  fr om  t hes ef ac ts ab out  cultur al diversi tyan d disagreeme n t,  and it he lpe d me to seeeve rythin gmor e  clea rly . I e ventua l ly cam e to unde rs t and th a t, of t h e  v ario us things I thoug h ta bout this topi c, som eo ft h emwer e correct,  b ut we r en't mo r al r e lat i vism; and som e of them w e remoralre lat i vism,but w er e n't  correct. I t to ok me a f ew yea r s to ge t  this a ll str aig hte nedo ut  i n m yh ead .  W hat you 're read in gnow i s my a t t empt  to  pas s som e of this on,  to  giv e  yo u a s hortc ut t hr oughthe th icket .This is the ess ay t hat I wis h I 'd  be en  able to rea d a fte r sitti ng thro u ghth o s e  a nthropology dinner s, m yhead spi nningv er ti g inouslyat  ex otic t alesof c u lt ural dif ferenc e .2.  Nobody 's  Perfe ct  So  wh at di d  I l earn?One of t he mo s t important th i ngs was this: th a t  b e liev ing  in a singl e ob j ecti ve t r ue  mo r ality  does n' t  m e an that you must al so  think  that  you're the f inal autho r i t y on wha t it co n tains. Moralit y nee dn't be an y  differe nt fr om anyth ing elseo n  this sc ore . W e a llm a ke  mistakes, we a ll g et  things  wr ong (so met ime s b adl ywrong), e veryoneis  f al li ble , and no one c an  sp ea k w ith f i nal, a bsolu te c er ta i nty  abouta ny t h ing,  m or alit y i nc luded . To thi nk that  there'sano bjec ti ve  morali ty, you needn 't  think tha tyou  can n e v er 3 bewrong about it. (In fac t , to th ink  that  you  can be w ron g abou t i t , youmaybehaveto  th i n k tha t th ere 's  an object i v e m orali ty -orotherwi se there isn't any t hin g to be wrong  ab out. I 'l l c o me bac kt o t h i s later.) All o f this flo ws fr om a basic dis ti nctionthat'senorm o usly im portant n ot just f or  eth i c s b ut also fo r philos ophy as a whole .  I t's t hedistin ct ion  betw een, o n  th e one  hand,  t he nat ure o frealityitself and, on the othe r hand , our  kn owledge o f t h atreality;or,more brief ly,  be tween  me t aphys icsa nd  ep i stemo logy .  Let me f i rs t t r y  t o illustrat e t his  with  an on-mor al e xample: the exist e nce of God. He re's o neque s tion :Does God exist ? T hi s is a met ap hysical que stion. I t' s  a qu estion  about  the na t u re of rea lity  it self. Now , h er e 's anot he rq uestio n: C an  we kn ow whe t herG o d exists? That's  an e p i stemo l ogi cal q ue stion.I t'sa question  about thenature  orpossi ble ext en t of o urkn owledge. A n d these a re ve ry diff er entque stions . Th e y  have  ind ep end ent answe r s .I fGo d  ex ists , the nhe e xists whe t her we k now it or n ot . A n d  if he do e s n't, thenhe
 happened?_What happened_is I studied philosophy._Philosophy showed_me_that I_was_muddled about what_exactly did and_didn't follow from these_facts about cultural_diversity_and disagreement, and it helped me to see everything more clearly. I eventually came_to_understand that,_of_the_various things I thought about_this topic, some of them_were correct,_but weren't moral relativism; and some of them_were_moral relativism, but_weren't correct. It took me a few years to_get this all straightened out in_my head. What_you're_reading_now is my attempt_to pass some of this on,_to give you a shortcut through_the thicket. This is the essay that_I wish I'd been able to_read after sitting through those_anthropology dinners,_my head spinning vertiginously at_exotic tales of_cultural difference._2. Nobody's Perfect_So what did I learn? One_of the most_important things was this: that believing_in_a single objective_true_morality_doesn't mean_that you must_also_think that_you're_the final authority on what it_contains._Morality needn't be any different from anything_else on this score._We_all make mistakes, we_all get things wrong (sometimes_badly wrong), everyone is fallible, and_no one_can speak_with final, absolute certainty about anything, morality included. To think that_there's an objective morality, you needn't_think that you can_never 3_be_wrong about it._(In_fact, to_think that you can be wrong about_it, you_maybe have to think that there's_an objective morality-or otherwise_there_isn't anything to be wrong about._I'll come back to this later.)_All of this flows from_a_basic_distinction that's enormously important not_just for ethics but also for_philosophy as a_whole. It's the distinction between, on the_one_hand, the nature of reality itself_and,_on the other hand, our knowledge_of_that_reality; or, more briefly, between_metaphysics and epistemology. Let me first_try to illustrate this with a non-moral example: the_existence of God._Here's one question: Does God_exist?_This_is a metaphysical question. It's a question about the nature_of reality_itself. Now, here's_another question: Can we know whether God exists? That's an_epistemological question. It's a question about the_nature or possible extent of our knowledge. And these are very_different questions. They have independent answers. If God_exists, then he exists whether we know_it or not. And_if_he doesn't, then he