jQuery headache

<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function() {
 
	$("#mcq li").children().not("a").hide();
 
	$("#mcq li a").click(function() {
 
		$(this).parent().siblings().children().not("a").find("li, p").slideUp('slow');
		/* need to filter out the ^^^ parent of the selected element here */
 
		$(this).next().filter(":visible").slideUp('slow');
		$(this).next().filter(":hidden").slideDown('slow');
 
 
	});
});
</script>
 
<!-- snip snip -->
 
	<ol class="multiplechoice" id="mcq">
		<li><a>Disagree fundamentally over what ought to be done following the death of a parent.</a>
			<ol>
				<p>This seems to be the most straightforward reading of Herodotus&rsquo; story: the Greeks would not accept the custom of the Callatiae &ldquo;at any price&rdquo;, while the Callatiae find the practice of the Greeks &ldquo;horrid&rdquo;. Does this reading support a relativist conclusion?</p>
 
				<li><a>Ethical relativism is true, because they both find the practice of the other abhorrent.</a>
					<ul>
						<p>This is an intuitively attractive conclusion: the two cultures have different views of what morality requires, and therefore morality must be relative to one&rsquo;s own culture. </p>
						<p>One might ask, though, whether it is legitimate to move from the fact of moral disagreement between the two cultures (the Greeks think one thing about morality, the Callatiae another) to the relativist conclusion that there can be no morality that exists outside of a particular cultural context. The two cultures may disagree over the right thing to do, but the very fact that such disagreement can take place seems to show that moral questions can cross cultural boundaries.</p>
					</ul>
				</li>
 
				<li><a>Ethical relativism is false, because the fact of their disagreement shows that argument is possible across cultures</a>
					<ul>
						<p>Although this conclusion is not one that Herodotus expresses in the text, it is reasonable to think that if two cultures fundamentally disagree about what to do then this provides evidence against the argument that moral questions exist only against a specific cultural background.</p>
						<p>This conclusion still allows that the disagreement may be very important, and even could be impossible to resolve. However, if one recognises it as a disagreement about the right thing to do, rather than a difference in cultural practices, the relativist position cannot be true.</p>
					</ul>
				</li>
 
				<li><a>Ethical relativism may or may not be true, depending on whether the two cultures see their disagreement in terms of right and wrong.</a>
					<ul>
						<p>It isn&rsquo;t quite clear from Herodotus&rsquo; account whether the Greeks and the Callatiae view each others&rsquo; practices as wrong and something they think should be prevented, or simply distasteful and something they would not themselves do. </p>
						<p>Although the former seems a more tempting way to interpret the passage, it could be argued that the dispute is not a moral disagreement until the participants make it one by claiming, for instance, that the Greeks should not be allowed to cremate their dead, or that the Callatiae should be forced to do so.</p>
					</ul>
				</li>
			</ol>
		</li>
		<li><a>Agree that the dead ought to be honoured, but disagree over the appropriate means of doing so.</a>
			<ol>
				<p>This interpretation takes the fact that the Greek and the Callatiae hold strong views about the appropriate means of honouring their dead to imply that they agree on the moral significance of honouring the dead in principle (although their horror at each others&rsquo; customs suggests that they would resist any such comparison). Does this reading support a relativist conclusion?</p>
 
				<li><a>Ethical relativism is true, and it just so happens that the two cultures agree with each other that one ought to honour the dead.</a>
					<ul>
						<p>This is to say that the fact that two cultures agree over a moral principle (that the dead should be honoured) does not mean that morality is not relative to culture. </p>
						<p>However, to conceive of this as agreement rather than mere coincidence is to accept that the two accounts of morality can be compared meaningfully, and this means that ethical relativism cannot be true. If the relativist was to argue in this way, she would instead have to claim that it was purely coincidental that the two cultures agree on the rightness of honouring the dead. </p>
					</ul>
				</li>
 
				<li><a>Ethical relativism is false, because the two cultures are capable of agreeing on the principle that one ought to honour the dead.</a>
					<ul>
						<p>This seems to be a reasonable interpretation, even though it is not the one that Herodotus seems to draw: even though the ways in which the Greeks and Callatiae honour their dead are very different, the fact that they agree on the principle of honouring casts doubt on the idea that morality can be strictly relative to one culture.</p>
						<p>The relativist might respond that since each party is so appalled by the customs of the other, there are no grounds to assume that they actually do agree on the principle to honour one&rsquo;s parents, since the very idea of honouring can only make sense when embedded in a particular cultural context.</p>
					</ul>
				</li>
			</ol>
		</li>
		<li><a>Should not be understood as having an ethical disagreement, as they are simply following the customs that apply in their own culture.</a>
			<ol>
				<p>This interpretation follows clearly from Herodotus&rsquo; conclusion that &ldquo;custom is lord of all&rdquo;: the presence of such clear disagreement over the right thing to do means there is no common ground to which either side can appeal. Does this interpretation necessarily lead to a relativist conclusion?</p>
				<li><a>Ethical relativism is true, because what is right for each culture depends on their customs.</a>
					<ul>
						<p>By interpreting Herodotus&rsquo; story this way, the relativist denies that the Greeks and Callatiae can argue successfully about what the right thing to do is, since both are acting within the boundaries of their own tradition. </p>
						<p>However, it may be difficult to argue that they are not in fact disagreeing over something more than cultural mores. Although all people may be convinced that, when it comes to custom, their &ldquo;own are by far the best&rdquo;, this does not explain their mutual horror at the practice of others. If this reaction does in fact amount to a statement about the rightness or wrongness of the customs, the parties must be understood as disagreeing about morality after all.</p>
					</ul>
				<li><a>The dispute is not about ethics, it is about custom, so it can tell us nothing about whether ethical relativism is true or not.</a>
					<ul>
						<p>This interpretation denies that the dispute between the two cultures can be resolved in the common language of right and wrong, but resists the relativist conclusion that this need always be the case. However, the position that Darius self-consciously occupies in the dispute - as the neutral observer - suggests the dispute is an ethical one after all. </p>
					</ul>
				</li>
			</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
</div>