tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352648376305239677.post9030062964802437396..comments2023-10-20T08:32:14.040-04:00Comments on Heaving Dead Cats: Starting To See Moral Relativism As Clearly FlawedAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12653141544095753595noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352648376305239677.post-38898935048905477392010-11-11T12:03:34.000-05:002010-11-11T12:03:34.000-05:00"science can help us with what increases or d..."science can help us with what increases or decreases human well-being."<br><br>I might point out that in my 5c such an ethical system is still relative. It's relative to human well-being being 'good', and while I agree and it may flatter our egos to think so it's not, in my opinion, a universal truth in the sense that is investigated by the natural sciences. The whole thing ties in with my belief that science may inform ethical study such as described, but it cannot tell you fundamentally what is 'good', you need to decide on the initial axioms yourself, even if it's just as simple as something like increasing human well being. I might further add that relativism does not imply normativism, just because I think all ethics are relative to certain things does. not. mean. I think all should be accepted. If you (not you particularly but the you in general) don't think something that increases human well-being (or some alternate rendering if that one ends up being problematic - cf Arrow's Impossibility Theorem) is good then I think you're a jack ass. :PHappyEvilSloshhttp://happyevilslosh.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352648376305239677.post-23893799840492298752010-11-13T18:11:29.000-05:002010-11-13T18:11:29.000-05:00Well, I don't think getting bogged down in the...Well, I don't think getting bogged down in the minutae of relative experience is really what he is trying to express in his book. But I am only on chapter 2.<br>I think in the example given above, it's pretty clear that that kind of moral relativity is depraved and dangerous, and certainly reduces human well being over mindless faith. <br>Science doesn't have all the answers at this time but that doesn't mean we can't still start using this system. It's certainly better than relying on 2,000 year old books written by angry desert goat herders in the Bronze Age.Neecehttp://www.heavingdeadcats.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352648376305239677.post-82928897775237055392010-11-15T11:22:56.000-05:002010-11-15T11:22:56.000-05:00It's not very disturbing at all. I've neve...It's not very disturbing at all. I've never actually heard a good argument against moral relativism. You were asking the wrong questions, did you ever bother to ask what she thought was moral and her opinion?<br><br>Just because, in the grand scheme of things, you can't declare absolutism, doesn't mean you just do nothing about anything. The most common problem I hear about moral relativism, is murder. Well, how do we declare murder wrong and convict murderers when there is no absolute right or wrong?<br><br>Didn't we just cover this? We can, because relatively, that is our position. Is murder absolutely wrong? No. Relatively? Yes. And that is moral relativism. The question presumed moral absolutism, which is contradictory to moral relativism in the first place. Unfortunately the majority of Americans don't agree that murder is wrong in all cases, hence the support for war. Ha, I had to stick that in there.<br><br>I'm also going to target her when she said: "She: Then you could never say that they were wrong." She was wrong (ha ha). I could always claim they are wrong, why? Because that is my relative position.<br><br>You should apply such thought to your determinism issues as well. I believe I remember you asking how are we to judge say murders when given their situation they would always do it... Here's the problem, your question presumes free will which determinism already claims we don't have. We convict them, because it was what we were to do given our situation, just as it was in his to murder. In fact, this expected conviction, is part of the reason why the murderer murdered. If, there was no law against killing, the situation would have drastically changed. Say he was killed earlier before he had a chance to kill... or a family member was killed and he realized how much it hurt and thus never killed.<br><br>You have to apply the philosophy fully, you can't go halfway... :DGMNightmarenoreply@blogger.com