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: 
367 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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
    

Custom Search

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