Uneasy at ethical relativism

Articles propounding ethical relativism always make me feel uneasy. I am referring to Peter Ivory's reasoned piece in Salient July 2 1975 which in his own words is pushing 'the absolute priority of rational discussion in ethics' rather than intentionally arguing for an ethical relativism.' I would refer him to Bertrand Russell who in his Philosophy of Logical Atomism p. 32 makes the point that the practice of philosophical analysis is highly respectable in that the results of correct analysis are undeniable. The question is however, what on earth does one do with the results of correct analysis?

My point in mentioning all that is to say that it is pointless analysing something in the world out of its context of relationship with other things. It is simply wrong to think one can use the conclusions of a particular analysis as premises in a moral argument the span of which exceeds the limits of the analysis. In other words it is not good enough to say that abortion is justifiable according to some systems and unjustifiable according to others and then to say that the State should take a view that ranges over the diversity of moral views. This course of action is oblivious to the real incompatibilities that invariably exist between those different systems. I suspect that the philosopher who leaves the argument there simply lacks the stamina or the ability to follow the reasoning process to the very end of the line and relate things on the widest scale. The solution is often labelled liberal its expedience passing for tolerance.

I do not believe that the number of purely verbal disputes is as great as Peter Ivory would have us believe. If he can actually show that the issues on the opposing sides of the abortion debate are simply verbal disputes, i.e. that there really are no common areas for substantial argument then his case is made. Until he shows that, his thesis is interesting, but unproved.