We may be in a period of culturally dominant moral relativism.
However, Don Loeb doesn’t argue for moral relativism, but for moral irrealism. Ultimately, (if I get him right) you can’t root moral thinking in any transcendant law or form of knowledge. You can have values like Loeb does, but you can’t make factual assertions about morality.
Peter Railton takes the opposing view but his moments of “moral awakening” at recognizing the depth of jazz and the wrongs of politically excluded women while consistent…may be…a little too convenient.
Is that really the best application of moral realism given the problems of the world? It makes me want to read Machiavelli.
See Also: Jesse Prinz goes so far as to defend moral relativism Another Note On Jesse Prinz’s “Constructive Sentimentalism”
