home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.callahans
- Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!yale!cs.yale.edu!news-mail-gateway!daemon
- From: kf8nh!kf8nh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (Brandon S. Allbery)
- Subject: Re: God and Science: The Ramblings of The Nightstalker
- Message-ID: <2b0ee75d.kf8nh@kf8nh.UUCP>
- Sender: ncoast!kf8nh!kf8nh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu
- Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" <allbery@NCoast.ORG>
- Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:49:34 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:21:55 GMT, "Michael Wasson" <mwasson@minnie.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
- > "Hmm. One argument I've heard against moral relativism goes like this:
- >
- > If I say, 'I believe the world is flat,' that's a *claim* that the
- > world is, in fact, flat. You wouldn't say 'I believe the world is
- > flat but I'm wrong.' Moral relativists seem to be saying something
- > quite like that in the realm of normative truths. 'I personally
- > believe that X is wrong, though it may not be wrong for somebody else'
- > is just like saying 'I believe the world is flat but it may not be
- > flat for somebody else'. By this argument, moral relativism is not
- > distinct from moral nihilism -- itself a consistent enough position if
- > you care to adopt it, but one most moral relativists would (I think)
- > shy away from."
- >
- > Gecko-boy sips contemplatively from his Dos Equis.
- >
- > "The scary thing is, I got this argument from my *mom*, who just
- > did her master's work in philosophy. I myself switched out of
- > that major while the going was good.... ;-)"
-
- Yeah, that's about what I'd expect from philosophy. But you're reading it
- backwards: to a philosopher it's as likely that the world will somehow manage
- to become flat anyway, if the current philosophy says it should be. :-)
-
- ++Brandon
- (needless to say, I'm rather dubious about philosophy)
-