回应反驳

Your objection, if I understand correctly, is that my initial premise regarding universal moral imperatives doesn't adequately account for cultural relativism. Is that a fair assessment?

Precisely. While I agree that some foundational principles might exist, the application and even interpretation of these 'imperatives' vary so widely that their universality becomes highly questionable.

I appreciate you clarifying that. My argument isn't that the *expression* of these imperatives is uniform, but rather that the underlying rational basis for them, such as avoiding unnecessary suffering, transcends cultural specificities. Would you concede that point?

It's a compelling distinction, but I find it pushes the concept into such an abstract realm that its practical utility as a *universal moral imperative* becomes negligible. How do you intend to bridge that gap?

That's a crucial challenge. My next step would be to argue that while the practical application requires cultural sensitivity, the *evaluation criterion* of what constitutes a moral action remains consistent across cultures, focusing on whether a society's norms actively promote or hinder basic human flourishing.

So, you're suggesting a distinction between descriptive relativism and normative universalism. It's a tighter argument, I'll grant you that, but the devil's in the details when defining 'human flourishing' without imposing a particular cultural lens.

Precisely. And that's where the subsequent discussion on shared human vulnerabilities and needs would come into play. Thank you for pushing me to clarify that distinction.