My interest in the issues considered here arose out of my great
frustration in trying to attack the all-pervasive relativism of my
students in introductory ethics courses at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. I am grateful to my students for forcing
me to take moral relativism and skepticism seriously and for compelling
me to argue for my own dogmatically maintained version of moral
objectivism. The result is before the reader. The conclusions reached
here (which can be described either as a minimal objectivism or as a
moderate verson of relativism) are considerably weaker than those that I
had expected and would have liked to have defended. I have arrived at
these views kicking and screaming and have resisted them to the best of
my ability. The arguments of this book are directed at those who deny
that moral judgments can ever be correct (in any sense that is opposed
to mistaken) and who also deny that we are ever rationally com- pelled
to accept one moral judgment as opposed to another. I have sought to
take their views seriously and to fight them on their own grounds
without making use of any assumptions that they would be unwilling to
grant. My conclusion is that, while it is possible to refute the kind of
extreme irrationalism that one often encounters, it is impossible to
defend the kind of objectivist meta-ethical views that most of us want
to hold, without begging the question against the non-objectivist.