In article <STEVE.92Nov17171300@styx.crc.ricoh.COM> steve@crc.ricoh.COM (Stephen R. Savitzky) writes:
> "Here's another shot at the 'moral relativism' debate," says the
> Mandelbear. "Some folks believe that killing people is wrong, Period.
> Some folks believe that killing people is ok sometimes, like if their
> government tells them to. The conditions under which people will
> allow their government to kill people vary from country to country as
> well as from person to person. If that isn't moral relativism, I'm
> not sure what is."
Uhm... Mandelbear, I think there's a distinction being lost. There
are different "flavors" of moral relativism. I won't detail all of them (I don't want to displace Alfvaen as the most volume posting Callahanian ;)... so I'll just introduce the most basic distinction between relativists.
There is what's called "weak" and what's called "strong" moral
relativism. Weak moral relativism says that different people BELIEVE
that different things are right and/or wrong for different
situations/people/etc. (this is a very basic explanation). Strong
relativism says that different things ARE right and/or wrong for
different situations/people/etc.
Your argument will only demonstrate weak relativism, which any moral
philosopher will note doesn't really give you much milage (beliefs,
after all, might not reflect the "truth of the situation." (an
absolutist will probably claim there's an actual state of affairs to
which a claim can be compared, returning some sort of truth value).
[Me, I'm something of a Subjectivist. I don't think it really matters
if there is or isn't an actual state of affairs. I just act as if
there is. ;) ]
[A very good satire of the Catholic church, and other valid points, deleted]
> "And many members of these various sects then have the gall to say
> that their religion is the *only* valid source of morality! That if I
> don't believe in their deity, I must have no morals at all. Now
> *that's* what I call evil!
Hmmm. I don't know: let's assume (only for the sake of argument) that
there IS an absolute state of affairs with respect to morality. IF
so, then there will be both people who are right with respect to
morality, and wrong with respect to morality. That is, there will
exist people who do not follow the moral rules (so to speak). Let's
further say that there's a creature that caused all of this to be, who
actually IS the source of all morality (thus being the ONLY source, in
the end). And that, finally, a group has these rules revealed to them
by the aforementioned entity.
If you buy all those assumptions (as many people in various religions
do), then you've got a perfect (absolutist) foundational justification
for making what you call "evil" claims. I'm going to note: I don't
buy all those assumptions. But IF those assumptions are true, then it
MUST be the case that their so-called "evil" claims are "okay" by the
(assumed) foundational source of all morality. It's entailed in the
assumptions. [I half expect this to start a flamefest, which is why
I'm putting this note in: THIS IS A CONTINGENT (CONDITIONAL) CLAIM OF
LOGIC. IT IS NOT SAYING THAT ANY GIVEN RELIGION IS OR MUST BE RIGHT.
I've been in far too many arguments because many people (though, I'm
sure, not you Mandelbear! ;) do not understand formal logic and/or
"natural language" (that is, the basis of all language in theory).]
> "Here's to relativism and tolerance! Long may they flourish!"
> <<CRASH!>>
I don't know about relativism in all it's forms. But tolerance, my
friend, is something we all need.
-Bill
--
William D. Yang wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Yang.25@osu.edu
It's my opinion, but if you really want it, you can have it for a nominal fee.
ObPhilosophy: One's mind should always reach further than one's overbite.
