To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9190
9189  |  9191
Subject: 
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:26:27 GMT
Viewed: 
1589 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > It boils down to relative morality.  When David talks about someone acting
> > morally (or immorally), he is making that call in relation to their own
> > moral code.  If someone has no moral objection to keeping slaves, they are
> > moral to do so; by the same lights, if someone has a moral objection to
> > being kept as a slave, they are moral to try and escape.
> > 
> > Since you reject moral relativism, obviously you disagree.
> 
> Yep. That is a good summation of both David's position and mine, I think.
> 
> Now back to might makes right... *isn't* moral relativism a kind of "might
> makes right"?
> 
> I think it is (without too much, if any, twisting) and that's one of my
> issues with it (but then, what do you expect, I'm a "being human gives us
> natural rights" kind of guy...).

No, I think you've got it backwards.  Moral relativism is (essentially)
stating that morality is subjective & internal, while 'might makes right' is
stating that moral action is anything that can be enforced.

I've started to go further about half a dozen times now, but keep
backtracking because I'll get to a point where I realize it depends an awful
lot on what you think moral relativism and 'might makes right' are.

Can you give me a starting point definition for those two?  I'll do the same
for 'might makes right', but for me, moral relativism is a derivation
(rather than a defintion), and so inherent to my thinking that I'm having a
hard time explaining it well.

Might makes right is, simplified, the belief that force is the ultimate
arbiter of any conflict; in other words, that morality is external, and
derived from enforcement.

Moral relativism holds that morality is ultimately a subjective belief, and
doesn't go any farther than that.  There are derivations from and
consequences of that basic concept, but that's it, in a nutshell.

James



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: Snip. (...) I would not agree with the above definition, but rather offer this one instead: MMR is the belief that there *is* no morality. whatever you have the power to do is OK, with no objective (...) (26 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
 
(...) Yep. That is a good summation of both David's position and mine, I think. Now back to might makes right... *isn't* moral relativism a kind of "might makes right"? I think it is (without too much, if any, twisting) and that's one of my issues (...) (26 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

36 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR