You can if you want, but you are qualifying BB's inquiry as regard to moral relativism, which hasn't been established by him, as the premise but in fact is a portion of the op, including "any" relativism and proceeding with an example of Incan sacrificial practice, alluding the practice as being wrong based on his understanding of relativism, of which he claims not to understand. Truth is the practice is right for the culture not wrong as a result of BB's cultural view of the practice. BB asserts that he favors "absolute truths" and negates relativism's validity, so did Plato, big deal. BB states, " I want to know what is RIGHT AND WRONG…..period." This is "factual" and excludes any sense of relativity, presents BB as a candidate for any religious organization that can dictate the right and wrong without any relative cross examination and set's a false precedent that what is deemed right or wrong is a universal truth. There is no fuzziness in the example and remains fundamental. Parsing of the premise, argument and conclusion is pedantic. Whether the nutrition content of hot peppers is beneficial or not is another issue, another premise. I'd rather go with Orns view that relativism is being bandied about with differing guises and that in itself is leading to the fuzziness. Clearly I see relativism as essential, without which much judgment passes via the monistic railway, ergo, dogma. Basic relativism is "what is good for some is not good for all" based on other criteria, while the absolute truth remains intact. BB thanks you for a "much better explanation" when in fact he's more impressed with the presentation than actually understanding it. I'm with gruff in that " The simple reality of relativism of any sort is that it depends on the situation". That is the example of Juan and Billy Bob. The Hot Pepper is irrelevant, it could be milk, red meat or the nutritional content of German beer. Why should anyone follow BB's book of absolute right and wrong without taking into consideration of that which is relative.
On Aug 23, 2:32 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 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
