Subject:
|
Re: More on Moral Relativism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Nov 2001 18:37:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
285 times
|
| |
|
|
Rest assured I'll defend moral relativism. :)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson102901.shtml
> >
> > I forgot how ferocious the battle for Okinawa actually was... but the real
> > point of this article lies elsewhere. Moral relativism is a bankrupt idea.
>
> More Hanson:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson110901.shtml
>
> This article continues showing why moral relativism (and a host of other
> things like aristocratic guilt reflexes and general politeness) lead to
> quagmire thinking.
Honestly, I think it's because most people don't understand (or "really
believe in") but still subscribe to moral relativism. Do I think bin Ladin
is evil? No. Do I think he should be stopped? Yes. Very different questions.
And that's what people don't seem to understand.
People link proper motivation to moral judgement. I think that's incorrect.
I don't have to hate someone in order to think they should be
stopped/killed/imprisoned/etc. I don't have to think they're evil. My moral
judgement of someone is irrelevant to what I should do to them.
People who may realize that someone isn't actually *evil* and as a result
decide "oh, ok, I won't punish them" are missing the bigger picture. And
yes, there I will agree with you, Larry. People who "kinda, sorta" see the
roots of moral relativism (and yes, there are lots) but who still don't
separate their actions from their moral views can cause a huge amount of
problems. Agreed.
But moral relativism isn't the thing that should be 'fixed'. It's the
connection to the action. It's similar to separating church and state.
Related:
A 7th grade teacher told us about an assignment he once gave. He asked the
kids to write a paper on something they enjoyed doing. One of the kids wrote
a paper on how he enjoyed walking around downtown Boston. He loved to find
homeless people's boxes and kick them over. And tear the boxes to shreds as
much as possible. The paper was supposedly really well written-- excellent
detail, no grammatical errors, etc. He got an A.
I agree with the decision. Does that mean I'd like the kid? Not at all. Does
it mean I wouldn't try and stop him from kicking over homeless people's
boxes if I could? No. Does it mean I'd give him an A on his paper? Yes.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | More on Moral Relativism
|
| (...) More Hanson: (URL) article continues showing why moral relativism (and a host of other things like aristocratic guilt reflexes and general politeness) lead to quagmire thinking. I especially considered the bit about how "UN" sanctions morphed (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
