Speaker relativism is different than agent relativism. It states that when we say "Zie is wrong" the truth value depends on the moral framework of us, not zim.
Moral disagreement is often used to justify relativism. If moral are universal, then there moral disagreement should not be that prominent.
However if relativism is true, there will be no moral disagreement, which seems to defeat the purpose of moral relativism.
A:"Zie is wrong"
B:"Zie is not wrong"
if zie is wrong is true depends on the speaker. Then we can translate it to "Zie is wrong for A." and "Zie is not wrong for B". Then to say that they are disagreeing is absurd, as they are simply stating two different statement. Because there are absolutely no conflict.
-
Relativism response
We are not actually saying "Zie is wrong" to represent "Zie is wrong for me".
The meaning of "Zie is wrong" is the same in a moral disagreement/talk. However Relativist will claim that meaning and truth condition are seperate. Meaning of a statement can be the same while their truth value differs.
But of course this claim is very controversial. It seems like that the a sentence is true or false is dependent on its meaning. And this claim might not only work on moral talks. If so, is there any other statement which have the same queerness ?
Please be in mind this one is short because it should be in the same chapter with agent relativism