Ray Prebble’s argument
at
Read Ray Prebble’s argument found here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/124/Are_You_A_Garbled_Relativist
Present and explain the argument that he calls “beguilingly plausible and utterly invalid.” Why does he think that the argument is invalid? What would James Rachels say about the argument Prebble deems invalid? Would Rachels agree with Prebble? Cite the relevant texts to support your claims.
Sample Solution
Ray Prebble’s argument found in the article “Are You A Garbled Relativist?” suggests that a seductive but ultimately invalid argument can be made from a relativistic worldview. According to Prebble, this argument is essentially that since everything is relative and nothing can be said for certain, then anything goes and no actions or beliefs should be judged (Prebble 2018). He states that though this line of reasoning can seem appealing at first glance, it does not hold up when examined more closely because it ignores the fact that we do have some normative standards to adhere by even if our views are subjective.
For example, Prebble points out how relativism fails to account for moral obligations such as those around human rights which many people – regardless of their individual values – agree upon; yet these principles would become irrelevant under a strictly relativistic system (Prebble 2018). We also tend to judge others on how they act or behave according to socially accepted norms even if we disagree with them ideologically. This suggests that while relativity may play an important role in how we interpret the world, it cannot replace our existing moral frameworks when making decisions.
Ultimately, while it might seem beguilingly plausible and valid at first blush, Ray Prebbles argues that relativism actually leads us down a slippery slope where morality itself becomes relative and meaningless. Thus he concludes by asserting that rather than embracing this belief system uncritically , one must instead accept its limits so as not lose sight of what matters most.
