Scorekeeping thick ethical concepts: What does it mean to disagree morally in cross-cultural dialogue

Thirty or so years ago, Bernard Williams made a number of plausible observations about thick ethical concepts, but without explaining why they work the way he believed. In this dissertation, I propose an underlying mechanism that explains the workings of thick ethical concepts. I develop a collective version of David Lewis's conversational scorekeeping model, and demonstrate how scorekeeping can control the contents of thick ethical concepts. Doing so allows me to reconstruct a widely remarked phenomenon, that people from different cultures apply different---indeed, incongruent --- thick ethical concepts.;Finally, I apply my model to concepts such as coercion and overpopulation, and illustrate how the scorekeeping model works in the context of China's one-child policy. I also consider and reject the biggest challenge to my theory. My theory has important implications for public policy. I suggest that understanding public policy through thick and thin ethical concepts is a new and effective approach to cross-cultural dialogue. The recommendation is that people learn the scoring histories of different cultures.;Next, I use the collective scorekeeping model to assess controversial claims made about thick ethical concepts, claims having to do with ethical relativism, the loss of knowledge, etc. In particular, I argue that the collective scorekeeping model allows us a more nuanced response than 'yes' or 'no' to the question of whether relativism of distance is a real phenomenon. I show that relativism of distance dissipates when one masters another culture's scoreboard; the ability and willingness to do so come with maturity, emotional and otherwise. I maintain that views about relativism are typical of phases in the ethical development of a personality. By applying the scorekeeping model, I show that there are at least four maturity levels corresponding to four types of relativistic attitudes. Briefly, in absolutism, a self-righteous attitude; in vulgar relativism, an ecumenical attitude; in relativism of distance, a disengaged attitude; and in mature assessment, a responsible attitude.