Thank you, that was a much better explanation.
On Aug 23, 12:32 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with BB, about picking apart the hot peppers logic. BB was
> asking about moral relativism, which is the question of whether there
> is absolute right and wrong, or only right and wrong in certain
> cultural contexts. Slip responded with an example from factual
> relativism, which is the separate issue of whether a fact is
> absolutely true or not true, or true only in a certain context.
>
> I think it's legitimate to take issue with the hot pepper example.
> There are many silly "logical" conclusions one can draw from the
> fuzziness of words. By noting that the "goodness" of hot peppers to
> Juan is a fuzzy concept that would benefit from a more precise
> description of what aspect of "good" we're getting at, e.g.,
> nutritional value, BB has really demonstrated how we should go about
> the business of exploring moral relativism, as well.
>
> In other words, the best way to parse the seeming contradiction that
> hot peppers can be both "good" and "bad" is to realize that good and
> bad have components to them, and sometimes we're using the words to
> describe only a certain component thereof, which creates fuzziness and
> leads to confusion and contradictions.
>
> So too with morality, and asking what is "right" and "wrong." Like
> "good" and "bad," right and wrong are fuzzy concepts that entail a
> host of other concepts. Millions of people have debates of what is
> right and wrong and talk past each other because they're referring to
> different facets of rightness and wrongness. Rightness includes a
> host of concepts, such as "that which you would want others to do if
> they were in your position," "that which produces the greatest good
> for the greatest number," "that which makes you happiest," etc. The
> whole business of moral philosophy is not arguing about whether
> something is right or wrong (because that just means that people talk
> past each other), but rather choosing one aspect of rightness, and
> then arguing that a certain rule or behavior or set of actions
> fulfills that aspect of rightness. If you agree with the particular
> aspect of rightness that that philosopher has chosen, you can have a
> meaningful debate. If you think a different aspect of rightness is
> relevant, then you can't make any headway. That's one sense in which
> there's no absolute right and wrong. If I think that rightness stems
> from actions that make the actor happiest without regard for those
> actions effect on others, there's really no way to argue otherwise.
> Then we'd just have to argue about which actions make actors happiest.
>
> Likewise, if I believe that rightness stems from principles that would
> be chosen if people were all born with different abilities, but didn't
> know those abilities because of a "veil of ignorance" (Rawl's idea),
> then anyone who agrees with me could debate me about what principles
> suggest themselves from that. But if someone doesn't agree that the
> veil of ignorance is a compelling basis for forming a moral
> philosophy, then there's really no grounds to convince that person
> otherwise.
>
> That's at least one aspect of moral relativism. I think.
>
> On Aug 23, 12:19 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It doesn't say "Billy Bob has an ulcer, therefore Hot Peppers do not
> > have any nutritional value", I don't understand how you think like
> > that, it's fundamental logic.
>
> > You pick apart the Hot Peppers when that is not the issue. The
> > nutritional content of the peppers is aside from the question "are
> > they good for everyone?".
> > A chili pepper might be good for Juan but it might not be good for a 2
> > week old baby.
>
> > We can't change an "absolute truth" with relativism. Fire is hot and
> > it burns, so one cannot say "Fire doesn't burn me only you".
>
> > The nutritional content of Hot Peppers does not establish a universal
> > truth. They are not good for everyone on the planet.
>
> > On Aug 23, 10:38 am, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 6:44 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Juan: "Hot Peppers are really "Good" for you" (true)
> > > > Billy Bob: "That's true but I have an ulcer so they're "Not Good" for
> > > > me" (true)
>
> > > I think this is a fallacy, false dichotomy? (I might need help, I am
> > > working on the fallacies)
> > > The way I see it, fact one: "there are nutritional components in
> > > peppers"
> > > Just because Billy Bob has an ulcer does not remove the first truth- Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
