T: Does this post make my butt look big???
AS: No...not at all....
T:You are correct. I feel no obligation to read anything or anybody that doesn't hold my interest. If I felt such an obligation, I'd have to read the entire Internet.
AS: But then why do you make an argument against it if you haven't even read it? It would be like me coming in to give my opposing point of view about your computer programing skills and never even opened up a book about programing.
T:Would you like to summarize the points for us?
AS: Well, I think they are pretty straightforward....like beauty tips in a beauty magazine....meaning I can't summarize any more than Jesse Prinz...see:
Living With Moral Relativism
People often resist relativism because they think it has unacceptable implications. Let’s conclude by considering some allegations and responses.
Allegation: Relativism entails that anything goes.
Response: Relativists concede that if you were to inculcate any given set of values, those values would be true for those who possessed them. But we have little incentive to inculcate values arbitrarily. If we trained our children to be ruthless killers, they might kill us or get killed. Values that are completely self-destructive can’t last.
Allegation: Relativism entails that we have no way to criticize Hitler.
Response: First of all, Hitler’s actions were partially based on false beliefs, rather than values (‘scientific’ racism, moral absolutism, the likelihood of world domination). Second, the problem with Hitler was not that his values were false, but that they were pernicious. Relativism does not entail that we should tolerate murderous tyranny. When someone threatens us or our way of life, we are strongly motivated to protect ourselves.
Allegation: Relativism entails that moral debates are senseless, since everyone is right.
Response: This is a major misconception. Many people have overlapping moral values, and one can settle debates by appeal to moral common ground. We can also have substantive debates about how to apply and extend our basic values. Some debates are senseless, however. Committed liberals and conservatives rarely persuade each other, but public debates over policy can rally the base and sway the undecided.
Allegation: Relativism doesn’t allow moral progress.
Response: In one sense this is correct; moral values do not become more true. But they can become better by other criteria. For example, some sets of values are more consistent and more conducive to social stability. If moral relativism is true, morality can be regarded as a tool, and we can think about what we’d like that tool to do for us and revise morality accordingly.
One might summarize these points by saying that relativism does not undermine the capacity to criticize others or to improve one’s own values. Relativism does tell us, however, that we are mistaken when we think we are in possession of the one true morality. We can try to pursue moral values that lead to more fulfilling lives, but we must bear in mind that fulfillment is itself relative, so no single set of values can be designated universally fulfilling. The discovery that relativism is true can help each of us individually by revealing that our values are mutable and parochial. We should not assume that others share our views, and we should recognize that our views would differ had we lived in different circumstances. These discoveries may make us more tolerant and more flexible. Relativism does not entail tolerance or any other moral value, but, once we see that there is no single true morality, we lose one incentive for trying to impose our values on others.
T:If we want to have civilization people, such as our kids, have to be given guidance on what the rules are. If the guidance is not clear and direct, we should expect less civilization.
An example.
A stop sign means stop. Period. Clear, simple, direct.
A stop sign doesn't mean "You might want to consider stopping here, depending on the circumstances, your cultural values, and Kant's opinion on stop signs, which we invite you to compare to Aristotle's traffic thesis."
AS: LOL I agree that we can't expect all of society to study philosophy in order to know right from wrong. But isn't that the same thing Christians want to do with the bible. Wouldn't they just love to make it a law where all people had to read the bible and adhere to it's rules? This isn't the argument the article is making. It is asking how we decide what is moral and what is not...with a healthy dose of tolerance for other people's values.
A stop sign isn't moral. It is a traffic law. There is no morality involved in stopping or not stopping...unless you kill someone by not obeying the law. When cars were invented we needed a way to organize travel in order to make the most sense. We have certain universal laws to keep things moving smoothly. However, some laws are not needed and others are immoral to some people. I think we have too many laws to maintain law and order. We simply cannot police them all. So now you have uneducated police "philosophers" who have to decide which laws to enforce and which ones to allow to happen. Is it any wonder they would choose the easy traffic laws to enforce while looking the other way when your house has been robbed?
I think this article goes deeper into the meaning of morality. However, there are good arguments against moral relativity...it's just that you haven't made them because you haven't read it and understood that the author already debunked most of your points in the article because he took the time to read opposition's views before he took pen to paper. If you had read this you could have formed a more sound argument one that didn't betray your ignorance.
T:But they never expressed ANY concern when Saddam was raping the country. The are only interested in the people of Iraq if those people can somehow be used to bash the U.S.
The moral superiority pose in this case is phony, and should be labeled as such.
AS: This is not true of all people. There were people who expressed concern. It is just like now...there are plent of people concerned and voicing their opinion of Darfur. But our government is not doing a thing...I wonder why? Could it be because they have nothing of value to offer us? This is the injustice that liberals see as immoral. But conservatives like you ignore this saying that they don't have time to read everything that doesn't interest them...but then...when their government decides to invade darfur and be "heros"...and then invade the next country and the next country....and liberals shout "Immoral!" Then you guys act as if we are phony and never said a thing about it prior to the US getting involved.
Could it be that you don't remember liberal expressing concern because you don't read any liberal newspapers or watch any liberal news? It's this sentiment below that betrays your lack of understanding:
"I feel no obligation to read anything or anybody that doesn't hold my interest."
AS: It's that statement of your that clearly demonstrates why liberals think conservatives are not well informed. See, liberals are very interested in knowing opposing arguments in order to think intelligently about an entire subject...we actually take in to account that we may be wrong! OMG what a novel idea! Whereas conservatives usually only want to know one narrow aspect of a problem and then make a hasty decision. Why? I don't get it....I mean...if you were trying to add up a bunch of numbers would you want to know the correct solution or would you purposefully leave out a number in order to come to an false solution that you had arbitrarily formed into your head prior to counting? To me this would make no sense. Why even bother to count? Wouldn't it be easier to just go with your arbitrary number?
