Tweet
That "s" just drives me crazy.
-
-
Wrong. The fact is that moral relativism is often seen as a moral theory by itself - in the way you are putting it, it is merely a theory about morality.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes you can. Relativism is not a moral philosphy, it's a philosophy of morality, just like you have philosophies of science, etc.
If you are a moral relativist, either as a 'philosophy of morality' or 'moral philosophy', it still remains that you cannot make any moral statement and be consistent, and that pretty much involves getting out of any political debate, which you aren't doing.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
Wrong. The fact is that moral relativism is often seen as a moral theory by itself - in the way you are putting it, it is merely a theory about morality.
And it is. If it's seen differently, some people see poorly. Relativism is inconsistent if taken as a morality.Comment
-
If you are a moral relativist, either as a 'philosophy of morality' or 'moral philosophy', it still remains that you cannot make any moral statement and be consistent, and that pretty much involves getting out of any political debate, which you aren't doing.
No, you simply cannot make any moral statement absolutely. Which is not necessary in a political debate, unless you happen to be a big fan of Rand."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Philosophy:
Math:I'm nothing. Nothing is perfect. I'm perfect.
Given: Nothing is perfect
Theorem: I'm perfect
Proof: I'm nothingmoney sqrt evil;
My literacy level are appalling.Comment
-
Ramo and Kuci:
The problem is that you would have to keep out of any value judgment whatsoever for all of your life. Obviously no moral relativist does that. They refer to relativism when they're being beaten by a moral argument, but they refer to a moral argument when it seems like it could help them.
For instance, you can't have any debate about free trade if you don't assume some sort of answer to 'what is a benefit?'In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
I don't take all value judgement out of my life. I simply accept that my value judgements are no more objectively true than any other value judgements."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Then how could one say that he is against X economic system because it increases poverty?In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
I don't see what your question is. Increasing poverty is apparantly a bad thing to "him," following from the bases of his ethical system. I don't see what the problem is with that."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
The problem would be that according to you there is no difference between "I am for free trade because it benefits the people" and "I am against free trade because it benefits the people".
Apoliticism and amorality should stem from moral relativism, but the phrase "everything matters equally, therefore nothing matters" is an invalid conclusion.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
No difference in what sense?"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Apoliticism and amorality should stem from moral relativism, but the phrase "everything matters equally, therefore nothing matters" is an invalid conclusion.
You're confusing the objective and the subjective."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
If you....Originally posted by Ramo
I don't see what your question is. Increasing poverty is apparantly a bad thing to "him," following from the bases of his ethical system. I don't see what the problem is with that.
"simply accept that my value judgements are no more objectively true than any other value judgements." ....how do you decide which position is the one you think is right or wrong?
I mean how do you come to the bases of a (your) ethical system then?BlahComment
-
Emotion."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Hm, you know this, or you think it is so?
BTW, I'm not trying to say you're wrong and evil, I just find it interesting...
BlahComment
Comment