I enjoyed Stich’s lecture and the examples he gave where really interesting. I believe that the main point or question of his lecture is if moral disagreement is fundamental. Many moral realists try hard to find evidence that suggests that moral disagreement is NOT fundamental. One of the examples that I found quite interesting was the study that philosopher Richard Brandt had conducted.The study was to reflect the idea that moral views across cultures are significantly different. The study focused on a certain people called Hopis. The Hopis have no moral qualms about allowing children to “play” with birds and other small animals in a way that causes the animals great pain and even breaking their bones, and ultimately the animals are killed. This situation was compared to how the contemporary white culture would see it. Of course, many people from the white contemporary culture were repulsed. especially since kids playing with animals in such a harsh way is seen as abnormal. Many believe that mistreatment of animals at an early age can be signs of the kid developing psychological problems. Brandt looked for evidence that the disagreement between the Hopis view and the contemporary white view is superficial. He did not find any evidence that would suggest that.
jenniferp95 
I find it interesting to learn about how other cultures can be completely different than my own. I have never heard of the Hopis before. I also never knew that other cultures consider hurting small animals as “play”.
Professor Stich’s lecture was very insightful. The Hopis example was also very helpful in understanding the point that the professor was trying to display. His argument against moral realists was very well supported by his examples and it proved his theory that moral disagreement is fundamental.
I used the same example as you about the Hopis and white. I found it one of the most interesting examples of moral disagreement.