Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Actually, after reading Agathon's argument, I see his point. Justice can become a power in itself if legitimated, and can thus be used to critique power....

Yay! Moral relativism really makes no sense at all.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Actually is means there is no truth.

So what happens if the statement "there is no truth" is true?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
"Justice" is the will of the strongest.

Even the strongest sometimes know when they are being unjust. Claiming to be just doesn't mean that you are being just or that you even believe that you are. Likewise saying that something is true or not does not make it either one.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

So what happens if the statement "there is no truth" is true?

kidding?

[Kidlicious]

I have to ask when people are kidding in this thread, because moral relativists will say the most ridiculous things.

[Immortal Wombat]

Yes. Moral relativism isn't a moral position, its a theory of morality. So "there is no absolute moral truth" doesn't exclude moral relativity from being correct as a theory.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Like the Catholic Church deliberately shielding fugitives from justice after WWII- and setting them up with retirement homes in French monasteries.

Or concealing the crimes of child-sex abusers from the civil authorities, and worse- allowing them to move from one parish to another and continue to molest children.


And hiding those wanted in connection with war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rwanda and Burundi.

Because of course, Holy Mother Church knows best- paedophilia and genocide and torture are all relative, when the perpetrators are members of the Croatian Ustasha, Vichy Regime, Nazi Party or Rwandan priests and nuns.

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Can Benedict XVI restore Catholicism to Britain?

Originally posted by bfg9000
You Brits have been out of the Catholic fold long enough! I mean, at least Luther had a pretty good argument prepared with a list of compelling reasons for leaving the church. Henry VIII's reason - he needed an annulment and the pope wouldnt grant it! On Monday, Benedictus warned against "a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." Right. So considering that your church was borne out of a lecherous Tudor king's ego, this is a warning to stop your misbehaving and come back to R.C. church! Else Benedict XVI will put the smack down on ya!

While Henry declared himself the head of the Church in England and removed anyone who said otherwise, the formal rupture between Rome and the Church of England did not come until Elizabeth's reign, when the Pope excommunicated it. By this time it had become apparent that the English really preferred a protestant church over the Roman church. So the C of E wasn't born out of Henry's need to sire a male heir in order to avoid another disasterous round of dynastic wars, but instead was born of English insistance upon practicing their faith in the manner they felt proper.
Besides, in the 1960s the Pope declared the Church of England a "sister church" and gave the Archbishop of Canterbury a cardinal's ring. Obviously it's a non-voting ring though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Yes. Moral relativism isn't a moral position, its a theory of morality. So "there is no absolute moral truth" doesn't exclude moral relativity from being correct as a theory.

You're still not making sense. Go back to the original context of my post and ask the question again.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC the original idea of moral relativism was not that there was no absolute moral truth, but instead that moral truths often have to be modified to fit the situation. Given it's original definition I don't think that there is anyone who isn't a moral relativist to some extent.

Killing someone is bad, most people would agree to that. How many would object to a sniper picking off a guy with an Uzi thjreatening to kill a bunch of kids held hostage in a school bus?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You're still not making sense. Go back to the original context of my post and ask the question again.

Bill said: Relativism is a truth.
You said: [Relativism] means there is no truth.
I said: The two are not mutually exclusive, since the two uses of the word "truth" apply to different things.

They must do, or the whole thing would be paradoxical.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Besides, in the 1960s the Pope declared the Church of England a "sister church" and gave the Archbishop of Canterbury a cardinal's ring. Obviously it's a non-voting ring though.

Very interesting... I had no idea. I guess it makes sense because the Anglican Church is basically set up like the Catholic Church before the Papal Revolution of 1100s.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Bill said: Relativism is a truth.
You said: [Relativism] means there is no truth.
I said: The two are not mutually exclusive, since the two uses of the word "truth" apply to different things.

They must do, or the whole thing would be paradoxical.

Neither uses applies to objective truth though. It seems to me that the reasoning behind moral relativism is that there is no objective way to know the truth. Do you apply this everywhere? Is there no such thing as truth that is not objectively true?

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Is there no such thing as truth that is not objectively true?

If course there is. "I love Sue" is a truth that is only subjectively true.

[Agathon]

If course there is. "I love Sue" is a truth that is only subjectively true.

No. If someone else says it and you deny it, it might still be true. You might secretly be in love with her.